IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.02.2026 Ved Kaur ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Joginder Singh ...Respondent(s)

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

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the appellant for declaration alongwith consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

2. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff against defendant seeking the relief of declaration that plaintiff is owner in possession of the plot measuring 209 square yards situated in Khewat No. 1248, Khatoni No. 2055, Khasara No. 14434/1570, 15900/1579, 4524/1573, Eastern Side, Near Jind Bye Pass Road, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’). Further relief of permanent injunction was sought restraining the defendant from raising any construction on the encroached portion. Further, relief of mandatory injunction was sought, thereby directing the defendant to remove and vacate the encroached portion of the land. It was averred in the plaint that plaintiff had purchased the suit property measuring 209 sq.yds. However, defendant intends to interfere in the peaceful possession of the suit property and has encroached upon part of the suit property. Plaintiff had reported the matter to the police. However, to no avail. Accordingly, present suit was filed on 17.03.2018.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), at Rohtak had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.2022. The Civil Appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2025. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff.

4. It is inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned District Courts have failed to appreciate that plaintiff had bought the suit property measuring 209 sq.yds. for valuable sale consideration through registered Sale Deed dated 02.12.1998. The boundary and dimension of the suit property are duly mentioned in the plaint. The ownership and possession of the appellant over the suit property has never been disputed by the respondent. In fact, in the written statement, the respondent has admitted ownership and possession of the appellant over the suit property. Yet, appellant has been non-suited. Learned counsel argues that the District Courts have failed to appreciate that registered Sale Deed which forms the basis of the appellant’s title, has never been challenged by the respondent on ground of fraud or misrepresentation. It is submitted that once the execution and contents of the registered document have been admitted, the onus had shifted upon the defendant to disprove the appellant’s title, which burden he miserably failed to discharge. It is contended that in the situation, learned District Courts have committed serious error in placing unwarranted burden upon the appellant to establish facts already conclusively proved by documentary evidence. It is contended that in view of the fact that defendant had failed to establish a better title, decree for possession and injunction ought to have followed as a matter of course.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Trial Court has failed to exercise its discretion judiciously by not appointing a Local Commissioner for the purpose of demarcation during the trial proceedings, despite clear pleadings and dispute regarding encroachment. This failure resulted in non-ascertainment of the actual position at the spot and deprived the appellant of an essential opportunity to prove her case.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned courts below have grossly erred in law and on facts