116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2087-2018 (O&M) Reserved on : 25.02.2026 Date of Decision : 07.03.2026 Judgment Uploaded on : 07.03.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced : Full Karam Singh & Anr ... Appellant(s) VERSUS Ravinder Singh & Ors ... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate and Mr. Aman Godara, Advocate for the appellants. ALKA SARIN, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2017 passed by the First Appellate Court. 2. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellants herein filed a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in the physical possession of the plaintiff-appellants as owners and from forcibly dispossessing them from the land measuring 8B-0B as fully described in the plaint as per jamabandi for the year 2007-08. It was the case set up that earlier Sh. Dhoom Singh father of the plaintiff-appellants was owner in possession YOGESH SHARMA 2026.03.07 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh RSA-2087-2018 2 of the suit land and after his death the suit land had been inherited by the plaintiff-appellants being legal heirs and, therefore, now the plaintiff- appellants are owners in possession of the suit land and have been cultivating the same since long. It was further averred that in an area measuring 0B-2B out of Khasra No.28//22/2, there is a tubewell of the plaintiff- appellants for irrigation of their agricultural land and the house of the plaintiff- appellants has also been constructed there. There is also a personal guga mari which was constructed by the father of the plaintiff-appellants for the purposes of worship. It was further the case that the defendant-respondent No.1 is the Sarpanch of the village and the plaintiff-appellants had opposed him in the Panchayat election. As a result, he has a grudge against the plaintiff-appellants and by taking undue advantage of the post of Sarpanch, the defendant- respondents had started asserting their right, title and interest in the personal guga mari which exists on the land of the plaintiff-appellants. It was further averred that the defendant-respondents were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff-appellants from the suit land. 3. On notice the defendant-respondents appeared and filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections to the effect that the guga mari is situated in land measuring 0B-2B comprising in Khasra No.28//22/2 vide jamabandi for the year 2007-08 and all villagers worshipped guga mari since time immemorial. On merits, it was the stand taken that the said land has never been used for cultivation purposes and is being used as a worship place of guga peer in guga mari at the spot since time immemorial. It was further stated that the tubewell of the plaintiff-appellants is situated in land measuring 2B-7B bearing Khasra No.28//22/2, which is in cultivating possession of the plaintiff-appellants, and the remaining land measuring 0B- YOGESH SHARMA 2026.03.07 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh RSA-2087-2018 3 2B is guga mari and the boundary of the same has been constructed by the defendant-respondents. It was further the case that the religious sentiments and feelings of the inhabitants of the village were attached with the guga mari and all the inhabitants of the village are worshiping the guga mari. It was further averred that in order to maintain peace, all the inhabitants of the village had paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of the alleged claim of the plaintiff-appellants over the land under guga mari and the plaintiff-appellant No.2 entered into an agreement with the inhabitants of the village on 15.09.2011 and agreed that no one from the family of the plaintiff-appellants were having any right or concern with the said land. It was further the case that the plaintiff-appellants had filed an application in the Police Station, but the same was thereafter compromised. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs over the suit land as prayer for ? OPP 2) Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable ? OPD 3) Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and have concealed true and material facts from the court ? OPD 4) Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 5) Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct ? OPD 6) Whether suit is hopelessly time barred ? OPD 7) Relief. YOGESH SHARMA 2026.03.07 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh RSA-2087-2018 4 5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.2015 partly decreed the suit. However, the claim qua land measuring 0B-2B bearing Khasra No.28//22/2, where the guga mari is situated, was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellants qua the land measuring 0B-2B where the guga mari is situated, however, the same was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2017. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that both the Courts have erred in not granting the relief qua the land measuring 0B-2B. It is urged that the plaintiff-appellants had proved their ownership of the suit land and the Courts ought to have decreed the suit in toto. It is further the contention that the compromise (Ex.D1) was never proved on the record and, hence, the suit qua land measuring 0B-2B where the guga mari is situated also ought to have been decreed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants. 8. In the present case the suit is simpliciter for permanent injunction. Both the Courts concurrently found that the land measuring 0B-2B, where the guga mari is situated, was being used for worship by the inhabitants of the village. The defendant-respondents had relied upon the compromise (Ex.D1) which was stated to have been signed by none other than the plaintiff-appellant No.2. The plaintiff-appellant No.2 - Goverdhan Singh @ Gordhan Singh - chose not to step into the witness box. No handwriting expert was examined by the plaintiff-appellants in order to prove that the signatures/thumb-impressions of the plaintiff-appellant No.2 had not been appended by him on Ex.D1. It has come in the evidence of the defendant- respondents that the guga mari was constructed over 02 biswa of land and the YOGESH SHARMA 2026.03.07 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh RSA-2087-2018 5 villagers come to guga mari for the purposes of worship and a fair was also organized every year at the site. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants was repeatedly asked to show any evidence to even remotely point out that the plaintiff-appellants were in exclusive possession of the land measuring 0B-2B, where the guga mari is situated, however, he was unable to point out to any such evidence. Since the suit is for simpliciter permanent injunction, the plaintiff-appellants were required to show their possession over the said land. Having failed to lead any cogent and reliable evidence to prove that the possession over land measuring 0B-2B was exclusively with the plaintiff-appellants, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. 9. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 07.03.2026 Yogesh Sharma ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO YOGESH SHARMA 2026.03.07 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh