IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

203 RSA No.1903 of 1996 (O&M)

Reserved on:16.01.2026 Pronounced on: 22.01.2026 Uploaded on:23.01.2026 Jasmat (since deceased) through LRs ... Appellant Versus Amir Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Ms. Neha Rani, Advocate for Ms. Sweta Beniwal, Advocate for LRs of the appellant.

Mr. Tapan Kumar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.

(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellant–plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.1996 passed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents- defendants was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1996 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the appellant-plaintiff was set aside.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being described in the manner in which they were before the learned Trial Court.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction asserting his actual physical possession over a triangular plot situated in village Indri, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon, marked as ABC in the site plan and shown in red colour. It was pleaded that the suit property measured about 110 feet on the western side and 165 feet on the northern-eastern side. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was of ancestral nature and that he had been in continuous possession thereof for a considerable period and chhappar, khors, fodder cutting machine were existing on the land and cattle were used to be tethered. It was further averred that the defendants, having no right, title or interest in the suit property, threatened to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff on 11.01.1993, giving rise to the cause of action for filing the suit.

Hence, the present suit.

4. Upon notice, the defendants filed their written statement controverting the averments of the plaint. It was pleased that the plaintiff was neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property and that the same was the ancestral property of the defendants. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is a resident of village Khanpur, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon, and that he has only recently settled in village Indri. It was asserted that the plaintiff has not placed on record the correct site plan of the property in question. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was categorically denied. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is not an original resident of village Indri and that the suit has been instituted merely to harass the defendants. It was alleged that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts, lacks locus standi, and that the suit is false, frivolous, and not maintainable in law.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?

(iv) Relief.”

6. In order to prove their case, both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. The plaintiff appeared as PW-1 and examined PW-2, Nanwa Lambardar and PW-3, Attar Singh, who supported the plea of long standing possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The plaintiff also relied upon the site plan and the report of the Local Commissioner. On the other hand, defendant No.1 appeared as DW-1 and asserted ownership and possession of the defendants, however, except for his own statement, no independent witness from the village was examined in support of the defence version.

7. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, the learned trial Court held that though both parties failed to prove ownership over the suit property, th