IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :19.02.2026 MEENA KUMARI AND ANOTHER ... PETITIONER VERSUS VISHAN KUMAR ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

PARMOD GOYAL , J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioners–defendants are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant–plaintiff against the dismissal of his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, vide order dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, was allowed.

2. The simple case of the plaintiff–respondent in the suit for permanent injunction is that he is a mortgagee in possession of the suit land. Defendant No. 2/petitioner No. 2 was the mortgagor and owner of the suit property; however, she, vide sale deed dated 09.05.2025, sold the suit property to defendant No. 1. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioners/defendants started interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff–respondent.

3. The learned Court of first instance, while dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 09.05.2025 as well as the Khasra Girdawari for the year 2025, wherein possession of defendant No. 2/petitioner No. 2 Kamla Devi, was reflected. On the other hand, the respondent-plaintiff relied upon the Jamabandis for the years 1965–1966 up to 2020–2021, wherein the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent- plaintiff was recorded as mortgagee in possession. Reliance was also placed upon the sale deed dated 09.05.2025, wherein it was specifically recorded that the mortgage shall continue. Both these aspects highlighted by plaintiff-respondent were duly considered by the learned Appellate Court, which held that the respondent-plaintiff had succeeded in prima facie proving his possession as a mortgagee. Consequently, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed and the order of the Court of first instance was set-aside.

4. On consideration, I do not find any error in the approach adopted by the learned First Appellate Court. The learned Court of first instance, while dismissing the application, wrongly laid undue emphasis on the ownership of the suit property having vested in defendant No. 1 vide sale deed dated 09.05.2025 and ignored the Jamabandis from 1965–1966 up to 2021–2022, merely on the basis of a stray entry in the Khasra Girdawari made in the year

2025 immediately prior to the execution of the sale deed.

5. The learned First Appellate Court has rightly noticed that even in the sale deed dated 09.05.2025, the recital “उपरो(cid:4)क्त रोकबा(cid:8) रोहन ह(cid:11) जो(cid:4) किक बादस्तू(cid:16)रो

MANOJ KUMAR जो(cid:8)रो(cid:18) रोह(cid:19)गा(cid:8) !” clearly recording that the mortgage shall continue existed. Thus, the sale deed itself acknowledges the subsisting rights of the plaintiff– respondent as a mortgagee and specifically records the continuation of the mortgage in his favour.

6. The mere fact that the land was sold by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 would not divest the plaintiff–respondent of his right to continue in possession as a mortgagee. The learned Court of first instance, therefore, erred in placing reliance upon the ownership rights of defendant No. 1 on the basis of the sale deed dated 09.05.2025. In the present case, ownership is not in dispute; rather, it is the possessory rights that are in question.

7. The possession of the plaintiff has been prima-facie established as that of a mortgagee, duly reflected in multiple entries in the Jamabandis from 1965 up to the last Jamabandi for the year 2021–2022. It is pertinent to note that Jamabandis are generally prepared at intervals of five years, and no Jamabandi subsequent to 2021–2022 has been prepared. Therefore, the consistent revenue entries demonstrate long-standing possession