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

RSA-1259-1993 (O&M) Reserved on:-03.12.2025 Pronounced on:- 12.12.2025 Uploaded on:- 15.12.2025 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment Gajjan Singh (since deceased) through LRs ....Appellant VERSUS Balaki Ram (since deceased) through LRs and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. G.S.Madaan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 7.

Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for respondents No.9 to 12.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Gajjan Singh, appellant/defendant No.1, now represented through his legal representatives, challenging the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court dated 05.05.1993, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dated 26.05.1990 were set aside.

Brief Facts

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Balaki Ram and six other plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that they were in peaceful, continuous and lawful possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 383/2 situated in the revenue estate of village Balaspur, Tehsil and District Patiala. It was asserted that they had been in lawful possession as owners for more than 20 years and that the defendants were threatening to dispossess them in an illegal and unlawful manner without having any right, title or interest in the suit property. They relied upon the revenue record to show their possession and pleaded that the defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner with their possession.

3. Upon notice, the defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. Their stand was that they themselves had been in possession of the suit land for the last 20 years continuously as owners and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any injunction. They further raised an objection that the suit in the present form was not maintainable. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a replication controverting the allegations made in the written statement and reiterating the assertions contained in the plaint.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land? OPP.

3. Relief.

Findings of the Trial Court

5. From the appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by both sides, the trial court recorded a clear finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit land on the date of institution of the suit or immediately prior thereto. The court noticed that although PW-1 Gamma Ram stepped into the witness box and asserted that the plaintiffs had been in cultivating possession of the disputed land for the last 25/30 years, his solitary and highly-interested testimony did not inspire confidence, particularly in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence. The court specifically observed that the plaintiffs neither examined any lambardar nor any other respectable resident of the village to support their assertion of possession.

6. The trial court further found that the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs, including Jamabandi for 1986–87 (Ex. P-1) and Khasra Girdawari for 1987–88 and 1988–89 (Ex. P-2), did not establish their cultivating possession. It was noticed that the name of the plaintiffs was recorded in the column of cultivation only for certain years, but this entry could not be relied upon to conclude actual possession of the plaintiffs on 27.05.1988, when the suit was filed, because the revenue entries were later corrected by the competent revenue authority.

7. On the other hand, the defendant G