IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 28.01.2026 Pronounced on : 25.02.2026 Judgment uploaded on : 25.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced: Full BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS ….Appellants Versus RAMESHWAR AND OTHERS ….Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for the appellants.

(joined through hybrid mode)

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court dated 29.10.2014 and by the learned First Appellate Court dated 28.03.2018.

2. Briefly stated the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they had become owners in possession of the land as fully described in the plaint under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Punjab Occupancy Act’) having acquired occupancy rights under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The case as set up by the plaintiff-appellants was that the predecessor-in-

interest of defendant-respondents No.19 to 21, namely, Mam Chand, was the owner of the suit land. Mam Chand mortgaged the land with Dhani and Moji successors-in-interest of defendant-respondents No.1 to 18. It was further the case that since 1931-32 the forefathers of the mortgagees defendant- respondents No.1 to 18 persuaded the forefathers of the plaintiff-appellants to start cultivating the land at a nominal rate of lagan @ ₹16 per annum which was equivalent to the land revenue, and they also promised not to eject them. On this agreement and promise, the forefathers of the plaintiff-appellants started cultivating the suit land. It was further the case that the plaintiff- appellants No.1 to 4 have inherited the tenancy rights on the death of their father, namely, Prabhu while the plaintiff-appellants No.5 to 10 succeeded to the tenancy rights upon the death of their father, namely, Sh. Kanshi Ram. It was the case that the forefathers of the plaintiff-appellants, on completion of their continuous cultivation for 30 years over the suit land, had become occupancy tenants and since the mortgagor had never got the land redeemed within a period of 30 years, therefore, the mortgagees had become owners of the suit land after the expiry of 30 years and that the plaintiff-appellants had become the occupancy tenants under defendant-respondents No.19 to 21 by operation of law.

3. Written statement was filed by defendant-respondents No.19 and 20 raising various preliminary objections. On merits it was the stand taken that the suit land was never given to the plaintiff-appellants as alleged, and it was denied that the mortgagees had become owners of the suit land. It was further the stand taken that the suit filed by the mortgagee for foreclosure had already been dismissed. Defendant-respondents No.1, 4 to 7, 11 to 15 and 17 also filed their joint written statement taking the stand that their forefathers have been in possession of the suit land for the last more than 150 years and that the period of redemption had expired and that they had become owners in possession of the suit land. It was the stand taken that their forefathers never promised the forefathers of the plaintiff-appellants not to dispossess them. Further stand was that the plaintiff-appellants had no right over the suit land. 4. Replication was not filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in the head note of the plaint ?

OPP

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

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit ? OP