IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.01.2026 Satbir ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Rameshwar and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendant No.1 is in Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein for mandatory injunction alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction, although dismissed by learned Trial Court, has been decreed by the First Appellate Court.

2. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein, is that they are the owners in possession in equal shares of plot measuring 6M, in Khasra No. 99 as gair mumkin plot (hereinafter referred to as “suit land”) as described in the plaint. It was alleged that defendants No.1 and 2 in association with other persons are bent upon illegally occupying the suit property. It was further alleged that defendant No.3 Gram Panchayat had encroached upon the suit property to the extent of area measuring 54 x 13 sq.ft. by constructing rasta upon the same as per Demarcation Report dated 29.08.2011. Despite repeated requests, defendant No.3 has refused to remove the encroachment and had ultimately refused to accept the demand of the plaintiffs. With these pleadings, present suit was filed on 21.09.2011.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 14.05.2015 on account of the fact that: possession of the plaintiffs was not proved over the suit property as plaintiff in his cross-examination had stated that defendants have encroached upon the land in September, 2012. It was held that as it was admitted by the plaintiff No.1 as PW1 that present suit was filed after defendants had encroached upon the suit property; and therefore, the plaintiffs were required to file suit for possession.

4. However, Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiffs was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar; and vide judgment and decree dated 02.12.2015, suit of the plaintiffs was decreed as follows: -

“21. Thus, in sequel to my above observations, I am of the considered view that the learned Civil Judge wrongly decided the issue no. 1 to 3, in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs. The impugned judgment & decree is hereby set aside by allowing the present civil appeal. Accordingly, defendant no. 3 is hereby directed to remove the unauthorised pacca rasta from the site in dispute marked by letters FGB and shown by green color in the site plan Ex.P3, and to restore the site in dispute in its original position. All the defendants are hereby also directed to permanently restrain from using the plot of the plaintiffs comprised in khewat no.57/52, khatoni no.69, khasra no.99, measuring 0 kanal 6 marlis situated in village Chhadwana. They are further directed not to interfere in the raising of boundary wall by plaintiffs for peaceful enjoyment of their suit property. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Both the parties to bear their own costs. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room, after due compliance.”

5. Hence, present Second Appeal by defendant No.1.

6. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned First Appellate Court was in error in not appreciating the fact that relief of permanent injunction could not have been granted to the plaintiff as it was the own pleaded case of the plaintiffs that the appellant was in possession of the suit land. It is submitted that moreover in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, learned First Appellate Court has also ignored the fact that defendants No.1 and 2 are owners of the suit land which was purchased by their father Amar Singh from Rattan Singh and