RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Dilbag Rai Bhalla Parminder Kaur and Another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. MANDEEP PANNU, J 1. The appellant/plaintiff judgments and decrees dated 01.08.2009 and 09.01.2013, whereby his suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was partly appeal filed by him was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Brief Facts 2. The appellant the respondents EG–1052, Mohalla Gobind sought mandatory injunction directing the vacant possession of the ground floor of the 2013 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Reserved on: Pronounced on Dilbag Rai Bhalla VERSUS Parminder Kaur and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. MANDEEP PANNU, J The present regular second appeal has been filed by the /plaintiff challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 01.08.2009 and 09.01.2013, whereby his suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was partly appeal filed by him was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents/defendants from dispossessing him from property bearing , Mohalla Gobind Garh, Jalandhar, except in due course of law, and also sought mandatory injunction directing the respondents/ vacant possession of the ground floor of the suit -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) Reserved on: 20.08.2025 Pronounced on: 22.08.2025 .....Appellant .....Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. present regular second appeal has been filed by the challenging the concurrent findings of Courts below vide judgments and decrees dated 01.08.2009 and 09.01.2013, whereby his suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was partly decreed by the trial Court and appeal filed by him was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining s from dispossessing him from property bearing No. arh, Jalandhar, except in due course of law, and also respondents/defendants to hand over suit property. present regular second appeal has been filed by the findings of Courts below vide judgments and decrees dated 01.08.2009 and 09.01.2013, whereby his suit for decreed by the trial Court and filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining No. arh, Jalandhar, except in due course of law, and also s to hand over TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) 3. It was pleaded that respondent/defendant increased with mutual consent. possession of the entire property and was regularly paying rent. He resided in the house with his wife and minor children, had electricity connection in the name of Gurbachan Kaur and water connection in the name of Atma Singh, and the consumption charges. He also claimed to have a telephone connection and bank account at the same address. 4. It was further pleaded that on 02.11.2005 at about 2 p.m., during the pendency of the suit, property, broke open the locks of the ground floor and committed theft of certain articles, despite a stay order in favour of the 5. The appellant/plaintiff asserted that only the first floor had been let out to the 1998, while the ground and second floor remained in possession of the respondent/defendant deliberately filed a wrong site plan. They also denied the alleged forcible dispossession from the ground floor on 02.11.2005. Findings of the Trial Court: 6. On the pleadings, 1) injunction restraining the or interfering into the peaceful possession of the over the disputed property as prayed for? OPP 2013 (O&M) It was pleaded that appellant/plaintiff /defendant No.1 in the year 1995 at a monthly rent of increased with mutual consent. Appellant/plaintiff possession of the entire property and was regularly paying rent. He resided in the house with his wife and minor children, had electricity connection in the name of Gurbachan Kaur and water connection in the name of Atma Singh, and the consumption charges. He also claimed to have a telephone connection and bank account at the same address. It was further pleaded that on 02.11.2005 at about 2 p.m., during the pendency of the suit, respondents/defendants along with other property, broke open the locks of the ground floor and committed theft of certain articles, despite a stay order in favour of the appellant/plaintiff The respondents/defendants contested the suit and denied that the aintiff was ever tenant in respect of the ground or second floor. It was asserted that only the first floor had been let out to the 1998, while the ground and second floor remained in possession of the respondent/defendants as owners. They contended that the deliberately filed a wrong site plan. They also denied the alleged forcible dispossession from the ground floor on 02.11.2005. Findings of the Trial Court: On the pleadings, following issues were f Whether the appellant/plaintiff injunction restraining the respondent/defendant or interfering into the peaceful possession of the over the disputed property as prayed for? OPP -2- plaintiff was inducted as tenant by No.1 in the year 1995 at a monthly rent of ₹800/-later /plaintiff alleged that he was in possession of the entire property and was regularly paying rent. He resided in the house with his wife and minor children, had electricity connection in the name of Gurbachan Kaur and water connection in the name of Atma Singh, and was paying the consumption charges. He also claimed to have a telephone connection and bank It was further pleaded that on 02.11.2005 at about 2 p.m., during the s along with others forcibly entered the property, broke open the locks of the ground floor and committed theft of certain appellant/plaintiff. s contested the suit and denied that the was ever tenant in respect of the ground or second floor. It was asserted that only the first floor had been let out to the appellant/plaintiff in July 1998, while the ground and second floor remained in possession of the wners. They contended that the appellant/plaintiff had deliberately filed a wrong site plan. They also denied the alleged forcible dispossession from the ground floor on 02.11.2005. issues were framed:- appellant/plaintiff is entitled to permanent respondent/defendants from dispossessing or interfering into the peaceful possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the disputed property as prayed for? OPP was inducted as tenant by later alleged that he was in possession of the entire property and was regularly paying rent. He resided in the house with his wife and minor children, had electricity connection in the name of was paying the consumption charges. He also claimed to have a telephone connection and bank It was further pleaded that on 02.11.2005 at about 2 p.m., during the s forcibly entered the property, broke open the locks of the ground floor and committed theft of certain s contested the suit and denied that the was ever tenant in respect of the ground or second floor. It was in July 1998, while the ground and second floor remained in possession of the had deliberately filed a wrong site plan. They also denied the alleged forcible is entitled to permanent s from dispossessing appellant/plaintiff TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) 2) injunction directing the possession of the ground floor of the suit property as prayed for? OPP 3) 4) present suit? OPP (As amended on 01.08.09) 5) clean hands and has suppressed OPD 6) 7. The trial Court, after appreciating evidence, decided Issues No.2 and 5 together and held that the possession over the ground floor and second floor, and therefore was not entitled to mandatory injunction or permanent injunction in respect of those portions. 8. However, with respect to the first floor, the trial Court f appellant/plaintiff decreed restraining the appellant/plaintiff law. Relief of mandatory injunction for ground floor and permanent injunction regarding ground and second floors was declined. Judgment and decree were passed on 01.08.2009. 2013 (O&M) Whether the appellant/plaintiff injunction directing the respondent/defendant possession of the ground floor of the suit property as prayed for? OPP Whether the suit is maintainable (as amended on 01.08.09) Whether the appellant/plaintiff present suit? OPP (As amended on 01.08.09) Whether the appellant/plaintiff clean hands and has suppressed the material facts, if so, its effect? OPD Relief. The trial Court, after appreciating evidence, decided Issues No.2 and 5 together and held that the appellant/plaintiff possession over the ground floor and second floor, and therefore was not entitled to mandatory injunction or permanent injunction in respect of those portions. However, with respect to the first floor, the trial Court f appellant/plaintiff was in possession as a tenant. Consequently, the suit was partly decreed restraining the respondent/defendants from dispossessing or interfering in appellant/plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the first floor except in due law. Relief of mandatory injunction for ground floor and permanent injunction regarding ground and second floors was declined. Judgment and decree were passed on 01.08.2009. -3- appellant/plaintiff is entitled for mandatory respondent/defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the ground floor of the suit property as prayed for? OPP Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPP appellant/plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit? OPP (As amended on 01.08.09) appellant/plaintiff has not come to the Court with the material facts, if so, its effect? The trial Court, after appreciating evidence, decided Issues No.2 and 5 appellant/plaintiff failed to establish tenancy or possession over the ground floor and second floor, and therefore was not entitled to mandatory injunction or permanent injunction in respect of those portions. However, with respect to the first floor, the trial Court found that the was in possession as a tenant. Consequently, the suit was partly s from dispossessing or interfering in ’s peaceful possession of the first floor except in due course of law. Relief of mandatory injunction for ground floor and permanent injunction regarding ground and second floors was declined. Judgment and decree were is entitled for mandatory s to hand over the vacant possession of the ground floor of the suit property as prayed for? OPP has locus standi to file the has not come to the Court with the material facts, if so, its effect? The trial Court, after appreciating evidence, decided Issues No.2 and 5 failed to establish tenancy or possession over the ground floor and second floor, and therefore was not entitled to ound that the was in possession as a tenant. Consequently, the suit was partly s from dispossessing or interfering in course of law. Relief of mandatory injunction for ground floor and permanent injunction regarding ground and second floors was declined. Judgment and decree were TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) Findings of the First Appellate Court: 9. The 09.01.2013. The lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of th holding that the appellant/plaintiff floor, but failed to prove tenancy or possession ove It was further observed that the documents such as electricity bills, water bills, telephone bills, etc., produced by the same pertained specifically to the ground floor or sec complaint or proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC did not establish possession. Submissions of the Appellant 10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that both Courts below failed to appreciate that the documentary proof of their possession over the ground floor. It was emphasized that DW1, attorney of the examination that he was not in possession of any document regarding the suit property, which itself showed that entire property. It was further argued that forcible dispossession of the by respondents/defendant and initiation of criminal proceedings. Hence, the entire suit ought to have been decreed. Submissions of the Respondent: 11. Learned counsel for the judgments of the Courts below and submitted that only as tenant of the first floor. No evidence has been adduced to show that either 2013 (O&M) Findings of the First Appellate Court: The appellant/plaintiff preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 09.01.2013. The lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of th holding that the appellant/plaintiff was admittedly tenant in respect of the first floor, but failed to prove tenancy or possession ove It was further observed that the documents such as electricity bills, water bills, telephone bills, etc., produced by the appellant/plaintiff same pertained specifically to the ground floor or sec complaint or proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC did not establish Submissions of the Appellant Learned counsel for the appellant argued that both Courts below failed to appreciate that the respondents/de documentary proof of their possession over the ground floor. It was emphasized that DW1, attorney of the respondents/defendant examination that he was not in possession of any document regarding the suit property, which itself showed that appellant/plaintiff entire property. It was further argued that forcible dispossession of the /defendants was evident from the disconnection of electricity supply and initiation of criminal proceedings. Hence, the entire suit ought to have been Submissions of the Respondent: Learned counsel for the responden judgments of the Courts below and submitted that only as tenant of the first floor. No evidence has been adduced to show that either -4- eferred an appeal which was dismissed on 09.01.2013. The lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court, was admittedly tenant in respect of the first floor, but failed to prove tenancy or possession over the ground and second floors. It was further observed that the documents such as electricity bills, water bills, appellant/plaintiff, did not establish that the same pertained specifically to the ground floor or second floor. Filing of a criminal complaint or proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC did not establish Learned counsel for the appellant argued that both Courts below /defendants did not produce any documentary proof of their possession over the ground floor. It was emphasized /defendants, admitted in his cross examination that he was not in possession of any document regarding the suit appellant/plaintiff was in possession of the entire property. It was further argued that forcible dispossession of the ground floor s was evident from the disconnection of electricity supply and initiation of criminal proceedings. Hence, the entire suit ought to have been respondents/defendants supported the judgments of the Courts below and submitted that appellant/plaintiff was inducted only as tenant of the first floor. No evidence has been adduced to show that either eferred an appeal which was dismissed on e trial Court, was admittedly tenant in respect of the first r the ground and second floors. It was further observed that the documents such as electricity bills, water bills, , did not establish that the ond floor. Filing of a criminal complaint or proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC did not establish Learned counsel for the appellant argued that both Courts below s did not produce any documentary proof of their possession over the ground floor. It was emphasized s, admitted in his cross- examination that he was not in possession of any document regarding the suit was in possession of the ground floor s was evident from the disconnection of electricity supply and initiation of criminal proceedings. Hence, the entire suit ought to have been supported the was inducted only as tenant of the first floor. No evidence has been adduced to show that either TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) the ground or second floor was ever let out to him. garb of the present suit, was seeking possession of the entire house despite being tenant of only one portion. The findings of the Courts below, being concurrent findings of fact, require no interference. Findings 12. I have considere 13. Undisputedly, both the Courts below have concurrently found that the appellant/plaintiff These findings have not been challenged by the relief of permanent injunction restraining the dispossessing the and stands affirmed. 14. The real question for consideration is whether was also in possession of the ground and second floors. On this aspect, the appellant/plaintiff the appellant/plaintiff establish by cogent evidence that ground and second floors were also possession. No rent note, receipt, or credible evidence has been produced. Reliance on documents such as electricity bills, water bills, and telephone bill as these do not specify which portion of the property they relate to. The trial Court has rightly observed that such documents cannot by themselves prove possession of ground floor 15. The contention that DW1 admitted in no document regarding the suit property does not advance the case. The onus was on the 2013 (O&M) the ground or second floor was ever let out to him. garb of the present suit, was seeking possession of the entire house despite being tenant of only one portion. The findings of the Courts below, being concurrent findings of fact, require no interference. have considered the submissions and perused the record. Undisputedly, both the Courts below have concurrently found that the appellant/plaintiff is tenant in possession of the first floor of the suit property. These findings have not been challenged by the relief of permanent injunction restraining the dispossessing the appellant/plaintiff from the first floor has rightly been granted and stands affirmed. The real question for consideration is whether was also in possession of the ground and second floors. On this aspect, the appellant/plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof. It was for appellant/plaintiff, who alleged possession as establish by cogent evidence that ground and second floors were also . No rent note, receipt, or credible evidence has been produced. Reliance on documents such as electricity bills, water bills, and telephone bill as these do not specify which portion of the property they relate to. The trial Court has rightly observed that such documents cannot by themselves prove possession floor and second floor. The contention that DW1 admitted in no document regarding the suit property does not advance the case. The onus was on the appellant/plaintiff to prove his possession, not on the -5- the ground or second floor was ever let out to him. Appellant/plaintiff, under the garb of the present suit, was seeking possession of the entire house despite being tenant of only one portion. The findings of the Courts below, being concurrent d the submissions and perused the record. Undisputedly, both the Courts below have concurrently found that the is tenant in possession of the first floor of the suit property. These findings have not been challenged by the respondent/defendants. Hence, the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendants from from the first floor has rightly been granted The real question for consideration is whether the appellant/plaintiff was also in possession of the ground and second floors. On this aspect, the has miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof. It was for possession as tenant of the entire house, to establish by cogent evidence that ground and second floors were also in his . No rent note, receipt, or credible evidence has been produced. Reliance on documents such as electricity bills, water bills, and telephone bills is misplaced, as these do not specify which portion of the property they relate to. The trial Court has rightly observed that such documents cannot by themselves prove possession The contention that DW1 admitted in cross-examination that he had no document regarding the suit property does not advance the appellant/plaintiff to prove his possession, not on the , under the garb of the present suit, was seeking possession of the entire house despite being tenant of only one portion. The findings of the Courts below, being concurrent Undisputedly, both the Courts below have concurrently found that the is tenant in possession of the first floor of the suit property. s. Hence, the s from from the first floor has rightly been granted appellant/plaintiff was also in possession of the ground and second floors. On this aspect, the has miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof. It was for of the entire house, to in his . No rent note, receipt, or credible evidence has been produced. Reliance s is misplaced, as these do not specify which portion of the property they relate to. The trial Court has rightly observed that such documents cannot by themselves prove possession examination that he had appellant/plaintiff’s to prove his possession, not on the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) respondent/defendant Sections 379, 447 IPC or proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC does not establish that the floor at any point of time. 16. Thus, the concurrent findings of the Courts below that appellant/plaintiff remained in possession appreciation of evidence and do not suff Conclusion: 17. In view of the above, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below dated 01.08.2009 and 09.01.2013 are well reasoned and call for no interference. The suit of the respondent/defendant dismissed qua the relief of mandatory injunction and ground and second floors. 18. The dismissed. 19. No order as to costs 20. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 22, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2013 (O&M) respondent/defendant to disprove it. Similarly, filing of a c Sections 379, 447 IPC or proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC does not establish that the appellant/plaintiff was in possession of ground floor and second floor at any point of time. Thus, the concurrent findings of the Courts below that appellant/plaintiff was in possession only of the first floor, and that he remained in possession in respect of the ground and second floors, are based on appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from perversity or illegality. In view of the above, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below dated 01.08.2009 and 09.01.2013 are well reasoned and call for no interference. The suit of the appellant/plaintiff has been rightly decr respondent/defendants from dispossessing him from the first floor, and rightly dismissed qua the relief of mandatory injunction and ground and second floors. The present Regular Second Appeal No order as to costs Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -6- to disprove it. Similarly, filing of a criminal complaint under Sections 379, 447 IPC or proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC does not was in possession of ground floor and second Thus, the concurrent findings of the Courts below that only of the first floor, and that he never in respect of the ground and second floors, are based on er from perversity or illegality. In view of the above, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below dated 01.08.2009 and 09.01.2013 are well reasoned and call for no interference. has been rightly decreed partly, restraining the s from dispossessing him from the first floor, and rightly dismissed qua the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction qua the present Regular Second Appeal being devoid of merit is hereby Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No riminal complaint under Sections 379, 447 IPC or proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC does not was in possession of ground floor and second Thus, the concurrent findings of the Courts below that never in respect of the ground and second floors, are based on In view of the above, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below dated 01.08.2009 and 09.01.2013 are well reasoned and call for no interference. eed partly, restraining the s from dispossessing him from the first floor, and rightly qua the being devoid of merit is hereby TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document