RSA 1091 of 2018 -1-

Neutral citation No. 2023:PHHC:067626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA 1091 of 2018 (O&M)

Date of decision : 10.5.2023

...

Puran Singh (since deceased) through his LRs

................Appellant

vs.

Gurdev Singh (since deceased) through LRs and another

.................Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan

Present: Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate for the appellant

...

H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral)

CM No. 2718-C-2018

This is an application for bringing on record Teja Singh

and Tejo, as legal representatives of deceased appellant Puran Singh.

Heard.

Allowed.

Main case.

1.

Briefly sated, facts of the case are that plaintiff –Puran

Singh, had brought a suit against defendant Gurdev Singh (since

dead), represented by his LRs, as well as Soma Singh, a brother of

Gurdev Singh, residents of village Jawandhey, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan,

District Fatehgarh Sahib, seeking a decree for permanent injunction

BANITA CHUGH

2023.05.12 11:55

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA 1091 of 2018 -2-

against defendants and persons claiming under them, from

interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit

property by opening the doors towards the property of the plaintiff

by breaking the wall and also from making any type of encroachment

upon that property illegally, forcibly, besides craving for grant of

mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the suit

property to its original position/condition existing at the time of

filing the suit by way of closing the door and window openings on

southern side of the suit property and by removing the projection

measuring 12' x 2' – 3” in the said wall, depicted in the site plan

attached with the plaint.

2.

According to version of the plaintiff, the suit property is

located within the village abadi and had been in possession of the

plaintiff. The plaintiff had been using the same for tethering cattle

and trees belonging to him are standing there. This property is

adjoining to the property of the defendants. The plaintiff has also

constructed a boundary wall in the side of the defendants. The

defendants threatened to interfere into the peaceful possession of the

plaintiff over the suit property by opening the door by breaking the

wall towards the property of the plaintiff illegally and forcibly and to

encroach upon the same, to which they have no right. Nevertheless

on 21.5.2000, the defendants had made an opening of door and

window in the wall towards the suit property in violation of stay

order passed by the Court. They had opened another door on

3.12.2000 and have raised a projection in the said wall towards the

BANITA CHUGH

2023.05.12 11:55

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA 1091 of 2018 -3-

suit property.

3.

On getting notice, the defendants appeared and filed

written statement, contesting the suit, raising various legal objections,

on merits contesting that the suit property is within the village abadi,

but they denied that the plaintiff is owner or in possession of the

same. The defendants claimed that they had been using the suit

property for tethering their cattle and trees standing therein belong to

them. The doors and windows of their house open towards the suit

property. A fodder cutting machine is also installed therein. There is

no boundary wall in the suit property as alleged and defendants are in

peaceful, actual and continuous possession of such property. The

openings are there since long. Refuting the remaining allegations, the

defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.

The plaintiff filed replication controverting the

allegations in the written statement, reiterating the prayer made in the

plaint.

5.

From the pleadings of the parti