RSA-4305 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 110 RAM SINGH PARKASH KAUR AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL CM-12067 1. 2. RSA-4305 3. and decree whereby judgement and decree has been set aside 4. defendants from dispossessing 4305-2019 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4305 Date of decision: RAM SINGH VS. PARKASH KAUR AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the appellant. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. 12067-C-2019 Delay of 216 days in the re-filing of the appeal is condoned Application is disposed off. 4305-2019 Appellant/plaintiff is in second and decree dated 05.09.2018 passed by the whereby judgement and decree dated 29.03.2017 has been set aside. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing or from interfering in peaceful possession of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 4305-2019 (O & M) Date of decision:04.03.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENTS SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate filing of the appeal is condoned. is in second appeal assailing the judgement passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, dated 29.03.2017 passed by the Trial Court laintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the from interfering in peaceful possession of sailing the judgement , Jalandhar, ourt, laintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the from interfering in peaceful possession of Sheetal 2025.03.25 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh RSA-4305 the residential house owner of the suit land and property as death he is residing in the residential house who was disinherited by h complaint before the Commissioner of No.2, who is dispossess him from the suit contested the suit by filing preliminary taken by the defendants on the basis of the their respective case. Court decreed the suit appellate court reversed the findings recorded by the dismissed hands of the 5. appellate court has failed to appreciate that after the death of Joginder S who was Board, the appellant appellant has been staying in the residential house along with his family for the last many years brother, but the charges are being paid by the appellant 4305-2019 (O & M) -2- the residential house. His pleaded case is tha owner of the suit land and Joginder Singh, his as a gair marusi. His father expired on 02 he is residing in the residential house was disinherited by his father during his life time complaint before the Commissioner of Police No.2, who is his mother and the defendants are making attempts to dispossess him from the suit property. U contested the suit by filing a written statement preliminary objections. Plaintiff filed a replication taken by the defendants in their written statement on the basis of the pleadings of the parties their respective case. After contest, by judgement decreed the suit. On an appeal filed by defendant No.2, the appellate court reversed the findings recorded by the ed the suit, resulting in the institution of the present appeal hands of the plaintiff. Mr. Sandeep Arora, counsel for the appellant urges that the appellate court has failed to appreciate that after the death of Joginder S was a gair marusi tenant over the property owned by the Punjab , the appellant/plaintiff came in its possession. He asserts that the appellant has been staying in the residential house along with his family for the last many years and although the electricity bill brother, but the charges are being paid by the appellant is that Punjab Wakf Board was the Joginder Singh, his father was in possession of the father expired on 02.06.2001 and after his he is residing in the residential house. His brother/defendant No.1 father during his life time, moved a false olice, Jalandhar, through defendant mother and the defendants are making attempts to . Upon being served, defendants written statement and raised various replication controverting the stand their written statement. Trial Court framed issues of the parties, who led evidence in support of by judgement dated 29.03.2017, T . On an appeal filed by defendant No.2, the first appellate court reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and , resulting in the institution of the present appeal at the counsel for the appellant urges that the first appellate court has failed to appreciate that after the death of Joginder Singh tenant over the property owned by the Punjab Wakf plaintiff came in its possession. He asserts that the appellant has been staying in the residential house along with his family for electricity bill is in the name of his brother, but the charges are being paid by the appellant. It is his contention was the father was in possession of the and after his defendant No.1, moved a false through defendant mother and the defendants are making attempts to , defendants various the stand framed issues , who led evidence in support of , Trial first ourt and at the first ingh, Wakf plaintiff came in its possession. He asserts that the appellant has been staying in the residential house along with his family for is in the name of his t is his contention Sheetal 2025.03.25 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh RSA-4305 that the water and which establish 6. submission 7. which measures 16 marlas Singh, who is the as a gair marusi. entire land produced any came in exclusive possession of any speci the death of Joginder Singh, property has to be considered in joint possession of Bench of this co-sharer is in possession of each and every inch of the joint property and he cannot claim to be in exclusive possession of any specific portion plan, Ex.P depict the correct position as prepared the site plan sitting in his office plaintiff has admitted and has admitted that his mother and is getting pension after her husband property. The 4305-2019 (O & M) -3- that the water and sewerage connection is in the name of the which establish his possession over the suit I have heard counsel for the appellant and considered submission besides examining the requisitioned The undisputed case of the parties is that the measures 16 marlas, belongs to the Punjab Singh, who is their predecessor-in-interest gair marusi. Plaintiff claims to be in possession of 6 marlas entire land, where a residential house has been produced any evidence to show that the property was came in exclusive possession of any speci the death of Joginder Singh, property has to be considered in joint possession of all his heirs, who are co-sharers ench of this Court in Bhartu Vs. Ram Swarup sharer is in possession of each and every inch of the joint property and he cannot claim to be in exclusive possession of any specific portion Ex.P1, upon which, reliance has been placed by the plaintiff does not depict the correct position as the draftsman prepared the site plan has admitted that he had prepared sitting in his office at the instance of the plaintiff plaintiff has admitted the possession of the defendants over the suit property and has admitted that his mother/defendant No.2 is residing in the property and is getting pension after her husband . The judgement passed by the learned connection is in the name of the appellant, over the suit property. heard counsel for the appellant and considered requisitioned record. undisputed case of the parties is that the suit property belongs to the Punjab Wakf Board. Joginder interest, was in possession of the property laintiff claims to be in possession of 6 marlas, out of the has been constructed. He has not hat the property was ever partitioned and he came in exclusive possession of any specific portion of the property. After the death of Joginder Singh, property has to be considered in joint sharers. It has been settled by a Full Vs. Ram Swarup 1981 PLJ 204 that sharer is in possession of each and every inch of the joint property and he cannot claim to be in exclusive possession of any specific portion. The liance has been placed by the plaintiff does not the draftsman-PW3, Daleep Singh, who admitted that he had prepared the site plan while at the instance of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination possession of the defendants over the suit property defendant No.2 is residing in the property and is getting pension after her husband's death on the address of the suit learned District Judge, Jalandhar, appellant, heard counsel for the appellant and considered his property, Joginder was in possession of the property out of the e has not and he fter the death of Joginder Singh, property has to be considered in joint Full that a sharer is in possession of each and every inch of the joint property and he site liance has been placed by the plaintiff does not who while examination, possession of the defendants over the suit property defendant No.2 is residing in the property 's death on the address of the suit , Jalandhar, is Sheetal 2025.03.25 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh RSA-4305 based on correct appreciation of the factual position and does interference. The 8. costs. 04.03.2025 sheetal 4305-2019 (O & M) -4- based on correct appreciation of the factual position and does interference. The findings recorded by the Appeal being devoid of merit .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No based on correct appreciation of the factual position and does not call for an by the first appellate court are affirmed Appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed, with no order as to (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No for any affirmed. , is dismissed, with no order as to Sheetal 2025.03.25 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh