IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (117 Date of Decision:-03.02.2026 MOOL CHAND (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS … Appellants Versus BISHAN DASS AND ANOTHER ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Kunal Bharti, Advocate for the appellants.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. Through the present Regular Second Appeal (for short “RSA”), the appellant-plaintiff has approached this Court seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2025 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, whereby the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewai was affirmed. The trial Court had dismissed the suit instituted by the appellants–plaintiffs seeking decree for declaration and permanent injunction. The appellants has questioned the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the ground that the same are manifestly erroneous, legally untenable, and unsupported by the evidence on record.

2. In the majestic sweep of the factual canvas presented in the plaint, the plaintiff’s case emerges with crystalline clarity, as set out hereunder:-

“The subject land, situated within the revenue estate of Village Bharawas, Rewari, was originally allotted to the defendants' predecessor, Jassu Ram, and subsequently devolved upon the defendants via mutation No. 503 in 1954. Following consolidation, the estate was re-particularized as Khewat No. 423, comprising 17 Kanals 9 Marlas. The plaintiffs' predecessor, Umrao Singh, held the land as a tenant (gair maurusi) since 1956, a status inherited by the plaintiffs who maintain uninterrupted, open, and cultivating possession. By agreement, the rent was pegged to the land revenue in perpetuity, with an express covenant against ejectment. Having reclaimed the once-uncultivable terrain through significant personal investment, the plaintiffs assert their status as permanent tenants, the defendants having never exercised physical possession.”

3. The plaintiffs assert proprietary title over the suit land by operation of The Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, predicated on the following grounds:

➔Fixed Rent & Occupancy: Possession has been maintained for over 30 years at a constant rent not exceeding the land revenue.

➔Reclamation & Improvement: The predecessor-in-interest transformed the once-uncultivable land into fertile soil through significant personal capital and labor.

➔Covenant against Ejectment: An express agreement exists guaranteeing permanent tenure and immunity from enhancement of rent or eviction.

➔Extinguishment of Title: By admitting the plaintiffs’ status as occupancy tenants since 1956, the defendants’ ownership rights stand statutorily extinguished.

4. Given the defendants' threats of forcible dispossession, which would cause irreparable injury, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory decree and permanent injunction. Notably, the defendants were proceeded against ex-

parte on 20.05.2019, despite being duly served.

5. Plaintiff was afforded full and unhindered opportunity to adduce their respective oral and documentary evidence. Upon an exhaustive and meticulous evaluation of the evidentiary record, the learned Trial Court concluded the proceedings by dismissing the suit. The subsequent appeal preferred by the appellants–plaintiff before the learned First Appellate Court was also dismissed, thereby affirming the findings of the Trial Court. It is against these concurrent and consistent determinations that the appellants have approached this Court by way of the present RSA.

6. The appellant, seeking redressal, have invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court to assail the judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below. In the considered view of this Court, it was appropriate to first examine the merits of the appellants’ contentions before issuing notice to the respondents. Accordingly, the appeal was initially subjected to preliminary scrutiny