RSA-1979-2017 (O&M) 1 129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1979-2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 01.04.2025 GULU SINGH & ANOTHER ....Appellants Versus AJAIB SINGH & OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Nisha, Advocate for respondent No.1. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs are in regular second appeal aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, dated 01.02.2017 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking decree of permanent injunction stands dismissed reversing the findings recorded by the Trial Court in judgment and decree, dated 21.11.2016. 2. For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position before the Court of First Instance, i.e. appellants as the plaintiffs and the respondents as defendants. 3. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from harvesting/reaping wheat crops of the plaintiffs Deepak Kumar 2025.04.05 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1979-2017 (O&M) 2 claimed to have sown in the suit land as detailed out in the headnote of the plaint. Parties are co-sharers in the suit land. 4. Suit was contested by the defendants claiming that the parties are co-sharers. Inadvertently, possession of the defendants was not recorded in the revenue record. On the application made by the defendants, revenue authorities corrected khasra girdawari for the crop sauni 2014 vide order dated 16.02.2015 passed by A.C. 1st Grade, Sri Muktsar Sahib. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, Court of the First Instance framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as being prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the defendants are in cultivating possession of the suit land being co-owners/co-sharers and the present suit for permanent injunction does not lie against them? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from the court? OPD. 4. Relief.” 6. While deciding issues No.1 and 2, Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have been proved to be in exclusive possession of the suit land, The order of correction of khasra girdawari is not reliable as the address of plaintiff No.2 was not correctly mentioned in the application seeking correction of khasra girdawari. On the aforesaid findings, Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Deepak Kumar 2025.04.05 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1979-2017 (O&M) 3 7. Dissatisfied, defendants preferred appeal. The Lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs were guilty of having concealed material facts w.r.t. correction of khasra girdawari from the Courts and were thus not entitled for the discretionary relief. Lower Appellate Court further held that since khasra girdawari was corrected after the spot inspection by the revenue authorities, exclusive possession of the plaintiffs is not proved as the khasra girdawari stood corrected in the name of the defendants before filing of the suit. Reversing the findings recorded by the Trial Court on issues No.1 and 2, Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissed the suit. 8. Mr. Walia has assailed the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court and has drawn attention of this Court to the observations made by the Trial Court w.r.t. plaintiff No.2 having not been properly served. He thus submits that the Lower Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 9. Per contra, Mr. Bansal submits that the concealment of the order of correction of khasra girdawari which came into existence prior to the filing of the suit, is evident. Khasra girdawari was corrected by the revenue authorities after inspecting the spot. There is no evidence on record to prove that the plaintiffs are in possession to the exclusion of the defendants. Thus, Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Deepak Kumar 2025.04.05 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1979-2017 (O&M) 4 10. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case. 11. This is not disputed that the order for correction of khasra girdawari in favour of defendants was passed on 16.02.2015. Instant suit was instituted by the plaintiffs on 01.05.2015. Mr. Walia is not in position to dispute that no reference was made to the order of the correction of khasra girdawari. There was no plea raised in the plaint w.r.t. non-service of plaintiff No.1. Thus, the Trial Court made out a case in favour of the plaintiffs which was not even pleaded. Lower Appellate Court thus rightly reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court. It is admitted case that both the parties are co-sharers. There is no evidence of plaintiffs being in possession of the suit land to the exclusion of the defendants. 12. In view thereof, this Court finds that the Lower Appellate Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant regular second appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. April 01, 2025 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Deepak Kumar 2025.04.05 14:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document