JUDGMENT :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J.

1. This regular second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2026 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide which appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2018 vide which suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff had been dismissed, was dismissed.

2. Case of plaintiff is that defendants No.1 to 15 through their predecessors-in-interest for about last 20 years made over the suit property in favour of plaintiff by way of oral tenancy @ Rs.50/- per month and plaintiff is in possession over the suit property i.e. Gwara/plot detailed in headnote of the plaint as a tenant. He has constructed a house over the same and is residing in it along with his family and also tethers his cattle. Earlier, payment of rent was being regularly made to father of defendants and now to defendants. It is further alleged that defendants are quarrelsome persons and now they are bent upon to interfere in the use of afore-said suit property and are causing obstruction in the use of the same by the plaintiff and they want to destroy the house constructed upon it and to dispossess him.

3. Defendants No.3, 4, 6, 7, 10 to 13 in their written statement had challenged the suit preliminary on the ground of maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, estoppel, non-joinder, mis-joinder of necessary parties, limitation and court fees and that plaintiff has suppressed true facts. On merits, it has been denied that the plaintiff or his predecessors were inducted as tenants by the predecessor of defendants or that he is in possession over the same. Rather it is submitted that the defendants are recorded as owners in possession of the suit property and are using the same continuously. The site plan relied upon by the plaintiff is also wrong. It has been denied that the plaintiff ever paid any rent or raised any construction over the suit property and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. Defendants No.1 to 5, 8, 9, 14 and 15 did not file any written statement and their defence was struck off vide order dated 30.08.2017. Following issues were framed for trial:-

“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Permanent Injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Mandatory Injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether suit is not maintainable in present form? OPD

4. Whether Plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file present suit? OPD

5. Whether Plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has concealed true and material facts from court? OPD

6. Whether Plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD

7. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

8. Whether suit is time barred? OPD

9. Whether suit at hand is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

10. Relief.”

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on file, learned trial Court came to conclusion that plaintiff has failed to establish his tenancy or possession over the suit property and held that no injunction can be issued in his favour and against defendants who are true owners and issues No.1 and 2 were decided against the plaintiff. Issues No.3 to 9 were decided against defendants and the suit was dismissed.

6. Feeling aggrieved, appeal was preferred and the First Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2026.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the material on file.

9. As per version of plaintiff, he is in possession over the suit property for the last 20 years as a tenant and he had been inducted as a tenant by predecessor of defendants. This fact has been denied by the contesting defendants. Both the Courts below after appreciation of the evide