The court upheld the finality of partition proceedings and the necessity of established ownership prior to challenging such actions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 M/s Raj Kumar Aggarwal and Company …Appellant Versus Krishan Kumar (since deceased) through LRs and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Hemant Sareen, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

(through Video Conference).

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2012 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3 The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the bifurcation of Khasra Numbers comprising in Khewats No.23,24 and 26, Khataunis No. 24, 36 and 41 (fully detailed in the plaint) by the revenue staff was totally incorrect, wrong, null and void and had no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs and that the order dated 26.03.2003 passed by S.D.M. Cum Collector No.1, Jalandhar was illegal, unlawful and wrong. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendants from forcibly, illegally and unlawfully taking possession of the land detailed in the head note of the plaint.

4. It was averred that the plaintiff was a partnership concern registered with the Registrar of Firms, Punjab having four partners, namely, Raj Kumar, Ravi Kumar, Yogesh Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Later on, upon the death of Raj Kumar and Pawan Kumar, a fresh partnership was constituted on 28.12.2000 which was registered on 27.02.2003. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased land measuring 17 Kanals 3 Marlas from Inderpal, Hari Ram and Baldev Singh and sale deed in this regard was duly registered with the Joint Sub Registrar, Jalandhar. After the purchase of the said property, possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff and at that time, the said land was Gair Mumkin Bhatha. Mutation No.380 was also sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff with the requisite entry made in the jamabandi for the year 1975-76.

5. The plaintiff claimed that that on account of a mistake of the revenue staff, entry of ownership of the plaintiff was not incorporated in the jamabandi for the year 1980-81 and the plaintiff was shown in possession of the property besides one Pritam Devi. Thereafter, the same entries were incorporated in the jamabandis for the years 1985-86 and 1990-91 but in the year 1991, the possession of the plaintiff over 5/6th share of the suit land was recorded besides the names of other persons. In 1995-96, possession as per the jamabandi for the year 1985-86 was restored and the names of other persons shown in possession were deleted. In the jamabandi for the year 2000- 2001, the bifurcation of the khasra numbers as mentioned in the head note of the plaint, was shown and on the basis thereof, the defendants wanted to take possession of the godowns of the plaintiff constructed on the suit land illegally and unlawfully.

6. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of Khasra Nos.38/1/2, 38/2 and 38/1/1. An application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial Court and appeal there-against was also dismissed.

7. It was further claimed by the plaintiff that it had raised construction and had also sown eucalyptus trees over the suit land in 1978. Avinashi Lal (defendant No.2) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff alleging therein that he h