IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :-18.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement:-20.02.2026 Uploaded on:-20.2.2026 State of Haryana through Collector and another … Appellants Versus Partap Singh and another ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Ved Parkash, Senior DAG, Haryana-Appellants.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (‘RSA’ for short) has been instituted by the appellants-defendants/State assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. By virtue of the impugned judgments and decrees, the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff, Partap Singh, seeking a declaration to the effect that he has become owner in possession of the suit land on account of the mortgage not having been redeemed within the prescribed period of limitation, or in the alternative, that he has perfected his title thereto by way of adverse possession, has been decreed.

2. At the outset, it is apposite to notice that the appellants- defendants contested the suit by filing a comprehensive written statement, raising various preliminary objections touching upon the very maintainability of the action.

2.1. By way of preliminary objections, it was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in the present form; that the plaintiff lacked locus standi; that no cause of action had accrued in his favour; that the suit was barred by limitation; and that it was liable to be dismissed for want of statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2.2. On merits, it was specifically averred that Budh Ram son of Kushala was the recorded owner of the suit land and that upon his demise, the property stood escheated to the State vide mutation No.1934 dated 28.03.1996. The defendants categorically denied that the suit land had ever been mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest and asserted that, consequently, no question of redemption arises. It was further contended that the possession of the plaintiff, if any, is wholly unauthorized and illegal, and that the defendants are legally entitled to dispossess him in accordance with law.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a replication, wherein the preliminary objections and substantive averments contained in the written statement were specifically traversed and denied, and the pleadings set forth in the plaint were reaffirmed in toto. Upon a meticulous consideration of the pleadings and the rival submissions of the parties, the learned trial Court, for the purpose of a structured and legally sound adjudication, framed the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest are in possession of the suit land as mortgagee under "Pardesh Sarkar"?

0PP.

2. Whether the plaintiff has be-come the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession being in continuous possession for more than

60 years? OPP

3. If issues No.1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief claimed? OPD.

4. Whether the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is illegal and unauthorized? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?

OPD

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

OPD

8. Whether the Budh Ram son of Khusala owner of the suit land was transferred in the name of State Government vide mutation No.1934 sanctioned on 20.3.1996 if so what effect? OPD

9. Relief.

4. Upon the framing of issues, both parties were afforded full and adequate opportunity to lead their respective evidence. After an exhaustive appraisal of the entire material available on record, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla decreed the suit, inter alia, holding that since the suit land stood mortgaged and the mortgagor, Budh Ram, had died issueless, the property having escheated to the State, the State could not ev