RSA-3546 112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jee Ram deceased through his LRs Balbir Singh and another CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) judgments and decrees dated the Courts below; whereby instance of appellants/ plaintiffs praying for restraining respo defendants from interfering in land, stands dismissed. 2. referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction with respect to the land mea Nos.4//2, 9, 12 and 121//10 situated within the revenue estate of Village Chhajju Nagla, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, with a 3546-2010 (O&M) [1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RSA Date of Decision: Jee Ram deceased through his LRs Versus Balbir Singh and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr.V.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate and Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 16.09.2008 and 15.05.2010 the Courts below; whereby a suit for permanent injunction filed at the instance of appellants/ plaintiffs praying for restraining respo defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession of the suit land, stands dismissed. Briefly stating, the appellants/ plaintiffs referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction with respect to the land measuring 22 kanals 12 marlas bearing Khasra Nos.4//2, 9, 12 and 121//10 situated within the revenue estate of Village Chhajju Nagla, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, with a 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3546-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 Jee Ram deceased through his LRs …….Appellants Versus .….Respondents JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Advocate s/plaintiffs. Rajinder Goel, Advocate and Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the 16.09.2008 and 15.05.2010 passed by permanent injunction filed at the instance of appellants/ plaintiffs praying for restraining respondents/ peaceful possession of the suit Briefly stating, the appellants/ plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction with suring 22 kanals 12 marlas bearing Khasra Nos.4//2, 9, 12 and 121//10 situated within the revenue estate of Village Chhajju Nagla, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, with a By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by permanent injunction filed at the ndents/ peaceful possession of the suit (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction with suring 22 kanals 12 marlas bearing Khasra Nos.4//2, 9, 12 and 121//10 situated within the revenue estate of Village Chhajju Nagla, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, with a SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3546 prayer for restraining the respondents from interfering in possession over the same. As per for the plaint, deceased father of the plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand, used to cultivate the suit land as ‘gair marusi tenancy rights were inherited to the plaintiff being le such he came in possession thereof as ‘ plaintiff also relied upon receipt dated 05.05.2003 batai, issued in his favour by respondent No.2/ defendant No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No permanent injunction. 3. defendant No.2 from Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vide registered sale deed dated 29.07.1993. After its pu respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 in the year 1998 and the remaining half was Puran Chand never remained in possession of the suit property as ‘gair marusi’ possession thereof. Defendant No.2 also pleaded that since entries in the khasra gird compromise Ex. D1 dated 27.04.2022 was entered into and as a result thereof, the entries were to be got corrected in the name of defendant No.2, however, pending before the Revenue authorities, the correction could not be 3546-2010 (O&M) [2 prayer for restraining the respondents from interfering in sion over the same. As per for the plaint, deceased father of the plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand, used to cultivate the suit land as gair marusi’ tenant, however, after his death on 03.05.2003, the tenancy rights were inherited to the plaintiff being le such he came in possession thereof as ‘ plaintiff also relied upon receipt dated 05.05.2003 issued in his favour by respondent No.2/ defendant No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No permanent injunction. Upon notice, a written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No.2 while stating that the suit land was purchased by him from Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vide registered sale deed dated 29.07.1993. After its purchase, half of the land was given on rent to respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 in the year 1998 and the remaining was in possession of defendant No.2. It was further pleaded that Puran Chand never remained in possession of the suit property as rusi’ and as such there was no question of plaintiff possession thereof. Defendant No.2 also pleaded that since entries in the khasra girdwaries were in the name of Puran Chand; compromise Ex. D1 dated 27.04.2022 was entered into and as a esult thereof, the entries were to be got corrected in the name of defendant No.2, however, as the proceedings to the same effect were pending before the Revenue authorities, the correction could not be 2] prayer for restraining the respondents from interfering in his peaceful sion over the same. As per for the plaint, deceased father of the plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand, used to cultivate the suit land as ’ tenant, however, after his death on 03.05.2003, the tenancy rights were inherited to the plaintiff being legal heir and as such he came in possession thereof as ‘gair marusi’ tenant. The plaintiff also relied upon receipt dated 05.05.2003 towards payment of issued in his favour by respondent No.2/ defendant No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No.2’) and thus claimed Upon notice, a written statement was filed on behalf of while stating that the suit land was purchased by him from Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vide registered sale deed dated rchase, half of the land was given on rent to respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 in the year 1998 and the remaining defendant No.2. It was further pleaded that Puran Chand never remained in possession of the suit property as and as such there was no question of plaintiff being possession thereof. Defendant No.2 also pleaded that since the waries were in the name of Puran Chand; compromise Ex. D1 dated 27.04.2022 was entered into and as a esult thereof, the entries were to be got corrected in the name of the proceedings to the same effect were pending before the Revenue authorities, the correction could not be peaceful sion over the same. As per for the plaint, deceased father of the plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand, used to cultivate the suit land as ’ tenant, however, after his death on 03.05.2003, the gal heir and as ’ tenant. The towards payment of issued in his favour by respondent No.2/ defendant No.2 .2’) and thus claimed Upon notice, a written statement was filed on behalf of while stating that the suit land was purchased by him from Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vide registered sale deed dated rchase, half of the land was given on rent to respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 in the year 1998 and the remaining defendant No.2. It was further pleaded that Puran Chand never remained in possession of the suit property as being in the waries were in the name of Puran Chand; compromise Ex. D1 dated 27.04.2022 was entered into and as a esult thereof, the entries were to be got corrected in the name of the proceedings to the same effect were pending before the Revenue authorities, the correction could not be SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3546 carried out in terms of the Chand or plaintiff ever paid any batai to defendant No.2 and thus prayed that the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff be dismissed. 4. the following issues: 5. 16.09.2008 dismissed the suit filed at the recording that the plaintiff failed to prove himself to be in cultivating possession of the suit property being ‘ No.2. 6. the same also came to be dismissed Judge, Yamuna Nagar, Hence, the present appeal. 7. passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the 3546-2010 (O&M) [3 carried out in terms of the said compromise. Chand or plaintiff ever paid any batai to defendant No.2 and thus prayed that the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff be dismissed. Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction on the ground as alleged in the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the suit not maintainable ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi ? OPD 4. Whether the defendant no.2 is owner and is actual physical cultivating posses 5. Whether revenue entry if any in the name of plaintiff are wrong illegal and against the factual position as alleged? OPD 6. Relief.” Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2008 dismissed the suit filed at the recording that the plaintiff failed to prove himself to be in cultivating possession of the suit property being ‘ Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed first appeal, however, me also came to be dismissed Yamuna Nagar, vide judgment and decree dated Hence, the present appeal. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the 3] compromise. It was denied that Puran Chand or plaintiff ever paid any batai to defendant No.2 and thus prayed that the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff be dismissed. Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed plaintiff is entitled for injunction on the ground as alleged in the plaint ? OPP Whether the suit not maintainable ? OPD Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi ? OPD Whether the defendant no.2 is owner and is actual physical cultivating possession as alleged ? OPD Whether revenue entry if any in the name of plaintiff are wrong illegal and against the factual position as Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2008 dismissed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff while recording that the plaintiff failed to prove himself to be in cultivating possession of the suit property being ‘gair marusi’ tenant of defendant Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed first appeal, however, me also came to be dismissed by the Court of learned District vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2010 Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits enied that Puran Chand or plaintiff ever paid any batai to defendant No.2 and thus Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed plaintiff is entitled for injunction on the Whether the defendant no.2 is owner and is actual Whether revenue entry if any in the name of plaintiff are wrong illegal and against the factual position as Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated while recording that the plaintiff failed to prove himself to be in cultivating ’ tenant of defendant Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed first appeal, however, by the Court of learned District 15.05.2010. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees submits SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3546 that the present being a suit for permanent injunction, the Courts below were to take into account merely the factum of possession over the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. He submits that there was material contradiction even in the stand taken by defendant No.2 with respect to his possession over the suit property. He points out that in the written statement the sta the possession of the suit property was obtained 1993 i.e. at the time of purchase of the same, whereas in terms of the compromise Ex.D1 dated 27.04.2002, it was stated that the possession of the property wa i.e. the father of plaintiff in the year 2002. Learned counsel also submits that even Khasra Girdwari question which was proved on record as Ex.P3 was in the name of father of the plain 1998-99 (Ex.P4) entire reliance placed upon Puran Singh i.e. Ex.D2 was wholly misplaced as the same was never proved on record Chand over the same counsel for the plaintiff also relies upon receipt Ex.P1 dated 05.05.2003 issued by defendant No.2 in his favour to show his possession over the property in question against receipt of Batai. 8. 3546-2010 (O&M) [4 the present being a suit for permanent injunction, the Courts below were to take into account merely the factum of possession over the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. He submits that there was material contradiction even in the stand taken by defendant No.2 with respect to his possession over the suit property. He points out that in the written statement the sta the possession of the suit property was obtained 1993 i.e. at the time of purchase of the same, whereas in terms of the compromise Ex.D1 dated 27.04.2002, it was stated that the possession of the property was handed over to him by Puran Chand i.e. the father of plaintiff in the year 2002. Learned counsel also submits that even Khasra Girdwari entry question which was proved on record as Ex.P3 was in the name of father of the plaintiff, besides even the jamabandi entry for the years 99 (Ex.P4) as well. Learned counsel further submits that the entire reliance placed upon by the Courts below over the affidavit of Puran Singh i.e. Ex.D2 was wholly misplaced as the same was never roved on record being legible and even the signatures of Puran over the same were never got compared or verified. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also relies upon receipt Ex.P1 dated 05.05.2003 issued by defendant No.2 in his favour to show his ssession over the property in question against receipt of Batai. No other argument has been advanced. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for 4] the present being a suit for permanent injunction, the Courts below were to take into account merely the factum of possession over the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. He submits that there was material contradiction even in the stand taken by defendant No.2 with respect to his possession over the suit property. He points out that in the written statement the stand of defendant No.2 was that the possession of the suit property was obtained by him in the year 1993 i.e. at the time of purchase of the same, whereas in terms of the compromise Ex.D1 dated 27.04.2002, it was stated that the s handed over to him by Puran Chand i.e. the father of plaintiff in the year 2002. Learned counsel also entry with respect to the land in question which was proved on record as Ex.P3 was in the name of the jamabandi entry for the years . Learned counsel further submits that the the Courts below over the affidavit of Puran Singh i.e. Ex.D2 was wholly misplaced as the same was never legible and even the signatures of Puran were never got compared or verified. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also relies upon receipt Ex.P1 dated 05.05.2003 issued by defendant No.2 in his favour to show his ssession over the property in question against receipt of Batai. No other argument has been advanced. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the present being a suit for permanent injunction, the Courts below were to take into account merely the factum of possession over the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. He submits that there was material contradiction even in the stand taken by defendant No.2 with respect to his possession over the suit property. He points nd of defendant No.2 was that in the year 1993 i.e. at the time of purchase of the same, whereas in terms of the compromise Ex.D1 dated 27.04.2002, it was stated that the s handed over to him by Puran Chand i.e. the father of plaintiff in the year 2002. Learned counsel also to the land in question which was proved on record as Ex.P3 was in the name of the jamabandi entry for the years . Learned counsel further submits that the the Courts below over the affidavit of Puran Singh i.e. Ex.D2 was wholly misplaced as the same was never legible and even the signatures of Puran were never got compared or verified. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also relies upon receipt Ex.P1 dated 05.05.2003 issued by defendant No.2 in his favour to show his On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3546 defendant No.2 submits that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit land. He signatures over the receipt Ex.P1 were proved as that of respondent No.2/ defendant No.2 proved on record. revenue record showing pl question and the record reflecting Puran Chand to be in occupation was not to be relied upon being in the name of dead person especially when the ‘ the absence o appeal. 9. through the paper the submission(s) made on behalf of the 10. be in possession of the property in question having been inherited from his father same, is without any even by his deceased father has not been proved on record. 11. nowhere been established that the plaintiff ever came into possession of the property in question; no revenuer record has been record by the appellant to show his possession over the suit property. The khasra girdwari and jamabandi 3546-2010 (O&M) [5 defendant No.2 submits that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit land. He signatures over the receipt Ex.P1 were proved as that of respondent No.2/ defendant No.2; nor the factum proved on record. Learned counsel also points out that there was no revenue record showing plaintiff to be in possession of the property in question and the record reflecting Puran Chand to be in occupation not to be relied upon being in the name of dead person especially when the ‘gair marusi’ tenancy was not even established in the absence of proof of rent and thus prayed for dismissal of the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book / records, I am unable to the submission(s) made on behalf of the The plea raised on behalf of the plaintiff that he came to be in possession of the property in question having been inherited from his father, who happened to be ‘ same, is without any merit. Payment of rent either by the plaintiff even by his deceased father has not been proved on record. Further from the evidence available on record, it has nowhere been established that the plaintiff ever came into possession of the property in question; no revenuer record has been record by the appellant to show his possession over the suit property. The khasra girdwari and jamabandi produced on record 5] defendant No.2 submits that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit land. He points out that neither the signatures over the receipt Ex.P1 were proved as that of respondent the factum about its execution was ever Learned counsel also points out that there was no aintiff to be in possession of the property in question and the record reflecting Puran Chand to be in occupation not to be relied upon being in the name of dead person ’ tenancy was not even established in f proof of rent and thus prayed for dismissal of the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone am unable to find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant. plea raised on behalf of the plaintiff that he came to be in possession of the property in question having been inherited happened to be ‘gair marusi’ tenant over the merit. Payment of rent either by the plaintiff even by his deceased father has not been proved on record. Further from the evidence available on record, it has nowhere been established that the plaintiff ever came into possession of the property in question; no revenuer record has been produced record by the appellant to show his possession over the suit property. produced on record were in the defendant No.2 submits that the plaintiff failed to prove his the signatures over the receipt Ex.P1 were proved as that of respondent about its execution was ever Learned counsel also points out that there was no aintiff to be in possession of the property in question and the record reflecting Puran Chand to be in occupation not to be relied upon being in the name of dead person ’ tenancy was not even established in f proof of rent and thus prayed for dismissal of the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone find substance in plea raised on behalf of the plaintiff that he came to be in possession of the property in question having been inherited ’ tenant over the merit. Payment of rent either by the plaintiff or Further from the evidence available on record, it has nowhere been established that the plaintiff ever came into possession d on record by the appellant to show his possession over the suit property. were in the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3546 name of deceased Puran Chand which the same plaintiff over the suit property not shown 12. been relied upon by the plaintiff not serve his cause. The signat admitted by defendant No.2. Even no effort was made by the plaintiff to get those signatures compared from the specimen signatures of defendant No.2. Moreover, the execution of any such receipt was denied by defendant as DW5. that the same contains signatures of one Jeet Singh; whereas defendant No.2 happens to be Ajit Singh and no evidence at all has been led by pl known as Jeet Singh as well. 13. No.2 over the property in question was even established on record through the compromise dated 27.04.2002, entered into between him and the deceased said compromise was even proved on record as Ex.D1 deposition made by of that Village 3546-2010 (O&M) [6 name of deceased Puran Chand which the same could not be considered as proof of possessi plaintiff over the suit property especially when payment of rent was shown. Furthermore, receipt dated 05.05.2003 (Ex.P1) which has been relied upon by the plaintiff towards proof of ‘ not serve his cause. The signatures over the said receipt were never admitted by defendant No.2. Even no effort was made by the plaintiff to get those signatures compared from the specimen signatures of defendant No.2. Moreover, the execution of any such receipt was denied by defendant No.2 in his cross Be that as it may, a perusal of the that the same contains signatures of one Jeet Singh; whereas defendant No.2 happens to be Ajit Singh and no evidence at all has been led by plaintiff to show that defendant No.2 Ajit Singh was ever known as Jeet Singh as well. On the contrary, the factum of possession of defendant over the property in question was even established on record through the compromise dated 27.04.2002, entered into between him the deceased father of plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand said compromise was even proved on record as Ex.D1 osition made by Sumer Chand, who happened to be ex of that Village and appeared as defendant witness 6] name of deceased Puran Chand which were to be thus ignored as be considered as proof of possession of the especially when payment of rent was Furthermore, receipt dated 05.05.2003 (Ex.P1) which has towards proof of ‘batai-rent’ also does ures over the said receipt were never admitted by defendant No.2. Even no effort was made by the plaintiff to get those signatures compared from the specimen signatures of defendant No.2. Moreover, the execution of any such receipt was No.2 in his cross-examination while appearing Be that as it may, a perusal of the document Ex.P1 shows that the same contains signatures of one Jeet Singh; whereas defendant No.2 happens to be Ajit Singh and no evidence at all has aintiff to show that defendant No.2 Ajit Singh was ever the factum of possession of defendant over the property in question was even established on record through the compromise dated 27.04.2002, entered into between him father of plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand and the said compromise was even proved on record as Ex.D1 from the Sumer Chand, who happened to be ex-Sarpanch and appeared as defendant witness. to be thus ignored as on of the especially when payment of rent was Furthermore, receipt dated 05.05.2003 (Ex.P1) which has also does ures over the said receipt were never admitted by defendant No.2. Even no effort was made by the plaintiff to get those signatures compared from the specimen signatures of defendant No.2. Moreover, the execution of any such receipt was examination while appearing Ex.P1 shows that the same contains signatures of one Jeet Singh; whereas defendant No.2 happens to be Ajit Singh and no evidence at all has aintiff to show that defendant No.2 Ajit Singh was ever the factum of possession of defendant over the property in question was even established on record through the compromise dated 27.04.2002, entered into between him and the from the Sarpanch SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3546 14. made on behalf of the plaintiff that the was not establ deceased father of plaintiff was not legible. In the humble opinion of this Court, legible, the possession of defendant No.2 was established over the suit property through the compromise Ex.D1 15. his possession over the property in question, much less substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal; as there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court Courts below dismissed. 16. disposed of. 08.09.2025 sanjay 3546-2010 (O&M) [7 Further no merit can even be found in the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff that the was not established on record as the deceased father of plaintiff was not legible. In the humble opinion of this Court, even if the affidavit dated 27.04.2002 Ex.D2 was not legible, the possession of defendant No.2 was established over the suit property through the compromise Ex.D1 In view of the above, once the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the property in question, much less substantial question of law is involved in the present as there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, the present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? 7] Further no merit can even be found in the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff that the possession of defendant No.2 ished on record as the affidavit Ex.D1 given by the deceased father of plaintiff was not legible. In the humble opinion of even if the affidavit dated 27.04.2002 Ex.D2 was not legible, the possession of defendant No.2 was established over the suit property through the compromise Ex.D1, itself. In view of the above, once the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the property in question, no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in the present as there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the , the present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No Further no merit can even be found in the submissions possession of defendant No.2 the deceased father of plaintiff was not legible. In the humble opinion of even if the affidavit dated 27.04.2002 Ex.D2 was not legible, the possession of defendant No.2 was established over the In view of the above, once the plaintiff failed to establish no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in the present as there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the , the present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.09 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document