IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-540-1998 (O&M)

Reserved on:-22.09.2025 Date of Decision : 23.09.2025 Sukhbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs ……Appellant versus Raja Ram and Others ….. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellant.

Name of respondent No.1 is deleted from the array of parties Vide order dated 15.01.1999.

Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate with Mr. Buta Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri which reversed the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff Sukhbir Singh. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri set aside that decree and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

Brief Facts

2. The plaintiff Sukhbir Singh instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the actual physical possession of the TRIPTI SAINI plaintiff and from cutting and removing the suger-cane and rice crops over the land measuring 7 Kanals 11 marlas, bearing khewat No.95, Khatauni No.155, Khasra Nos.71/11 situated in the revenue of Village Deodhar, HB No.72, Tehsil Jagadhri, as per jamabandi for the year 1982-83. Further with the prayer for restraining the defendants from taking the possession of the suit land forcibly from the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land from the last 15 years as tenant Gair Marusi and had been paying the Batai to the landlord regularly. It was further alleged that the land of the defendants was also situated adjoining to the suit property and defendants, claiming that they have been allotted the suit land by the State Government from the Surplus pool, had been threatening the plaintiff to forcibly dispossess him from the suit land and to cut the crops from the same.

3. Upon notice, the defendants filed their written statement and denied the plaintiff’s possession and relied upon allotment/award showing that the land was declared surplus and allotted to them. They further stated that Halqa Patwari by mistake had entered the name of the plaintiff over the suit land out of the total land measuring 53 kanals 12 marlas and the same fact was revealed when they came to know about the present suit and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land as they had sown their crops in the suit land and harvested the same.

4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the facts.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenant? (OPP)

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? (OPD)

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit? (OPD)

TRIPTI SAINI

4. Whether defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35-

A CPC? (OPD)

5. Relief.

6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and called Ajaib Singh as PW-2. The plaintiff relied principally upon following revenue documents:-

i) Ex. P1: Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1982–83, ii) Ex. P2: Khasra Girdawari for crops (covering rabi 1983 to rabi

1988), iii) Ex. P3: Copy of Jamabandifor the year 1987–88, iv) Ex. P4, P5, P6: Subsequent copies of Khasra Girdawari /

Jamabandiup to 1992–93, v) Ex. P7: Copy of Khasra Girdawari dated 25.3.1994.

7. The defendants examined DW-1 Rattan Singh and DW-2 Om Prakash and placed on record Ex. D1, which is the allotment/award document and other revenue material showing that the land in dispute was declared surplus and allotted to Raja Ram (and others), and which, according to defendants, demonstrates title/allotment and their possession.

Findings of the t