IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (221 Date of Decision:-11.02.2026 MAM RAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LR … Appellants Versus OM PARKASH AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents (through video conferencing)

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, whereby the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court were affirmed. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 17.09.1996, had dismissed the suit instituted by the appellant–plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction. The appellant now calls in question the concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below as being legally unsustainable and factually erroneous.

2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction, asserting co-ownership to the extent of one-half share in the suit property, having purchased the same in a Court auction held on 10.10.1965. It was pleaded that the defendants–respondents, who are co-owners to the extent of one-fourth share, were threatening to raise construction over the suit property, thereby necessitating the institution of the suit.

3. Upon service of notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein they denied the ownership of the appellants–plaintiff and further pleaded that the plaintiff was not in possession of any part of the suit property. It was averred that their father, Shankar, had purchased one-half share of the suit land measuring 1 Kanal 5 Marlas vide registered sale deed dated 23.08.1966 and had raised construction of a residential house thereon in June 1967. It was further asserted that they are in continuous possession since then, claiming the same to be hostile in nature.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a replication, specifically traversing the pleas and objections raised in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the plaint. Upon a careful consideration of the pleadings and the rival contentions of the parties, the learned trial Court, with a view to clearly delineate the matters in controversy, proceeded to frame the following issues for adjudication.

1. Whether the plaintiff and defendants are co owners in possession of the bara in dispute to the extent of half share?OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD。

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?

OPD.

4. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs, if so, to what amount?OPD.

5. Relief.

5. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit upon recording a categorical finding that the appellant–plaintiff had failed to establish his ownership and possession over the suit property, and that the respondents–

defendants had perfected their title thereto by way of adverse possession.

5.1. In appeal, the learned First Appellate Court reversed the finding relating to perfection of title by adverse possession. However, it concurrently held that the respondents–defendants were owners of 13 marlas of land, constituting the entire share of the Chohal, on the strength of the registered sale deed Ex.D1/1, a document more than thirty years old, which carried a statutory presumption of genuineness. The revenue entries in the Jamabandi were accordingly held to stand rebutted, the appellant–

plaintiff having failed to substantiate his asserted title.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has instituted the present appeal assailing the judgments and decrees rendered by the learned Courts below. Notice was issued to the respondents, who have appeared through counsel and contested the appeal strenuously

6.1. To facilitate a comprehensive and effective