IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.01.2026 Jagdish ......Appellant Versus Sheo Chand deceased through LRs and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

Appellant-Jagdish (defendant No.2), is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing the appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kanina, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs as well as the counter claim filed by defendants No.1 and 2, was decreed.

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

3. Plaintiff (Sheo-Chand) filed a suit for injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from raising construction upon specific portion of more than their share without partition of land measuring 1 Kanal (fully described in the plaint), situated in Village Karira (hereinafter referred to as `the suit land’). In the alternative, the plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish any construction raised during the pendency of the suit.

4. It was claimed that the suit land was a co- parcenary property and had not been partitioned by any Court of competent jurisdiction. The parties were co-sharers. It was asserted that defendants No.1 and 2 were quarrelsome persons and they wanted to raise construction on a specific portion of the suit land without getting the same partitioned.

5. The suit was contested by defendants No.1 and 2 by filing a written statement. It was asserted by them that they had been in possession of land measuring 12 marlas, which was partitioned in a brotherhood manner and they had raised four-wall and a tin shed, which was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. It was further asserted that the said defendants had planted a kikar tree in their land, which was felled by the plaintiff. It was also asserted that in an application filed by defendant-Jagdish to the police, a compromise had been effected between the parties and they were bound by the said compromise.

6. Defendants also filed a counter claim asserting therein that if the Court came to the conclusion that the land had not been partitioned between the parties, then both parties be restrained from raising construction upon the suit land.

7. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed in the plaint?OPP

2. Whether the defendant is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed in the counter cliam? OPD

3. Whether the suit/counter claim of the plaintiff/defendant is not maintainable in the present form?OPD/OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff/defendant has no locus standi to file the present suit/counter cliam? OPD/OPP

5. Relief.

8. Parties led their respective evidence.

9. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016, decreed the suit of the plaintiff as well as the counter claim filed by defendants No.1 and 2, by restraining both parties from raising any construction upon the suit land, without getting the same partitioned. The appeal filed by defendant No.2 (Jagdish) was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021, leading to the filing of the instant appeal.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, both Courts did not take into consideration the testimony of the witnesses of the plaintiff and the documentary evidence, through which, it was proved on record that the partition proceedings were pending before Assistant Collector, 1^st Grade. It is also argued that settlement (Mark-1) arrived at between the parties was wrongly dis