Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 34
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Alka Sarin, J.
Jaswant Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Hameli Devi & Ors. – Respondents
R.S.A. No. 2466 of 2022
Decided On : 03-03-2025
For the Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Singh Adv.
A decree granting possessory rights does not justify a mandatory injunction for mutation without establishing ownership rights, necessitating inclusion of all necessary parties in the underlying suit.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Relief of mandatory injunction - The plaintiffs filed suit for injunction to compel sanction of mutation of agricultural land following a prior decree in their favor for possessory rights - Claims dismissed by Trial and Appellate Courts on grounds of lack of locus standi and absence of necessary parties. (Paras 4, 8, 10, 11)
(B) Jurisdiction and Locus Standi - The issue of locus standi arose, as the official defendants were not parties to the prior suit and the decree related only to possession without affecting ownership. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction to compel sanctioning of mutation for 7 kanals 10 marlas of land based on a previous decree granting them possessory rights. The suit was dismissed due to lack of standing, as official defendants were not included in the original suit.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld that the earlier suit granted merely possessory rights and ownership remained with Shamlet Deh, negating the claim for mutation.
Issues: The primary issues pertained to the plaintiffs' entitlement to seek mandatory injunction against non-parties and the question of ownership versus possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a decree for possessory rights does not afford grounds for entering a mutation that affects ownership, emphasizing the necessity of including all relevant parties in such claims.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs seek mandatory injunction for land mutation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. both courts dismissed suit; appeal filed. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. no legal basis for mutation without ownership. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. appeal dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Alka Sarin, J.
CM-8477-C-2022
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 383 days in refiling the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 383 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off.
RSA-2466-2022
3. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court.
4. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-appellants herein filed the present suit seeking relief of mandatory injunction directing defendant-respondent Nos.2 to 4 to sanction mutation of agricultural land measuring 7 kanals 10 marlas in favour of the plaintiff-appellants in equal shares. It was averred in the plaint that a civil suit no.363 of 2011 was filed by the plaintiff-appellants against the defendant-respondent No.1 who was a private defendant-respondent qua land measuring 7 kanals 10 marlas, which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-appellants on 19.05.2012 on the basis of a compromise entered between the parties. After obtaining a certified copy of the order the same was submitted in the office of defendant-respondent No.4 alongwith an application to sanction the mutation in favour of the plaintiff-appellants in equal shares in compliance of the order dated 19.05.2012 but the same was not entered. Hence, the present suit.
5. The defendant-respondent No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
6. The defendant-respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed their joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that the defendant-respondent Nos.2 to 4 who are the official respondents were not the parties in the earlier suit bearing No.363 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff-appellants. It was further averred that the civil suit was decreed vide the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2012 to the extent of possessory rights only over the land measuring 7 kanals 10 marlas and the ownership with regard to the land vested in Shamlat Deh and that the defendant-respondent No.1 was merely in possession as cultivator.
7. No replication was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether plaintiff are entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction directing defendants no.2 to 4 to enter and sanction the mutation of agriculture land 7K- 10M, as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether plaintiffs have no locus-standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present suit ? OPD
3. Whether plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts from the court ? OPD
4. Whether suit of plaintiffs is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
6. Relief.
8. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.02.2017 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellants which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2019. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit. It is urged that since the earlier suit was decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellants, a mutation ought to have been sanctioned in their favour on the basis of the said civil court decree.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants.
11. In the present case the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants was only against defendant-respondent No.1 and was regarding relief of possessory rights of the defendant being tran
