RSA-2097-2018 (O&M)

Page 1 of 7

211

2023:PHHC:080716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA-2097-2018 (O&M)

Date of decision: 01.06.2023

Smt. Gian Kaur through LRs and others

…Appellants

VS

Tehsildar and others

…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate

For Mr. Raj Kumar Kakkar, Advocate,

For the appellants.

***

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

For convenience, parties herein are described as per recitals

before learned trial Court.

2.

Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts

below, plaintiffs are in second appeal before this Court assailing learned

trial Court judgment and decree dated 11.03.2015, as upheld by learned First

Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 17.10.2017, dismissing

the suit of the plaintiff for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory

injunction.

3.

Briefly stated, facts, as noticed by learned First Appellate

Court, are as under:-

“3.The brief facts are that the appellants filed the

above referred suit for declaration, permanent injunction and

mandatory injunction alleging that previously, Inder Singh,

husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 to 4

was owner of the land in dispute. After his death, appellants

No.1 to 4 became the absolute owners of the land in dispute on

the basis of inheritance of Inder Singh. Appellant No.5

Balwinder Kaur purchased some land from appellants No.1 to

4. She also became owner of 128 shares out of the total 448

shares of the land. It was further stated that previously, there

was litigation pending between the respondents and Isher Kaur

since deceased through her legal heirs and others qua land in

VANDANA

2023.07.12 09:51

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-2097-2018 (O&M)

Page 2 of 7

dispute. Ultimately, a decree was passed in favour of the

respondents in the said civil suit. The parties to the said suit

intentionally mentioned the khasra numbers of the land in

dispute which was owned by Inder Singh, predecessor of the

appellants. As per jamabandi for the year 2007-08the

ownership of the land in dispute was shown in the name of the

appellants but during the litigation between the parties, the

appellants were not aware of the fact of mentioning false

khasra numbers of the land owned by the appellants.

4.

It was further stated that when the appellants

approached The Halqa Patwari for getting jamabandi for the

purpose of obtaining loan, they came to know from rapat

No.586 dated 20.05.2009 that the suit qua land in dispute was

wrongly and illegally decreed in favour of the respondents. The

said rapat lodged in connection with the land in dispute qua

Dakhal Malkana on the basis of the judgment and decree dated

26.04.1979 passed by the court of Shri S.S. Arora, Sub Judge

Ist Class, Ferozepur, was illegal, null and void and liable to be

cancelled. Neither parties of the said suit were owners in

possession of the land in dispute nor the present respondents

were owners in possession of the land in dispute but they had

got the orders for seeking possession of the land of the

appellants on the basis of illegal decree dated 17.04.1979 and

also got entered Rapat No.526 dated 20.05.2009 qua Dakhal

Malkana.

5.

It was further stated that on the basis of the above

said rapat, respondents No.1 & 2 were bent upon to enter and

sanction the mutation and respondents No.3 to 8 were bent

upon to alienate the land in dispute and also to forcibly

dispossess the appellants from the land in dispute, for which

they had no right. The cause of action accrued to the appellants

and against the respondents on 28.05.2010, when respondents

No.3 to 8 tried to forcibly dispossess the appellants from the

land in dispute but their attempt was foiled with the

intervention of the respectable persons of t