IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

218 RSA-4486-2015(O&M)

Date of decision: 25.02.2026 Ganga Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Rakesh Kumar ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gurdev Singh Kuka, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate Mr. Arjun Sangwan, Advocate Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocate Ms. Rashima Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein, for declaration and injunction, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. In the plaint, the plaintiff-respondent had asserted that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit plot by virtue of Sale Deed No.4754 dated 16.03.2010 executed in his favour by Babu Ram/previous owner of the suit property. It was stated that defendant has no concern with the possession or ownership of the disputed plot, but the defendant is a strong-headed person and is bent upon to encroach upon the suit land without having any right. The plaintiff had requested the defendant many times not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property but to no avail. Hence, present suit was filed on 28.04.2010 seeking declaration that plaintiff is owner in possession of the plot as described in the plaint; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, mortgaging, leasing, alienating or interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from encroaching upon the disputed plot.

3. Upon appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana, District Fatehabad had decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 12.09.2013 in the following manner:-

“19. As a sequel to my above discussion, this suit filed by the plaintiff succeeds and the same is decreed with costs to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of one plot measuring 22.31 square yards detailed and described in the head note of the plaint and defendant is restrained from selling, mortgaging, leasing, alienating or interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and he is also restrained from encroaching upon the said plot. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly and file after due compliance be consigned to the record room.”

4. The Civil Appeal filed by the appellant/defendant was dismissed with costs by the ld. Additional District Judge, Fatehabad vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2015. Hence, present Second Appeal by the defendant.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Courts below were in patent error in non-suiting the plaintiff as they failed to appreciate the duly proved averments of the defendant/ appellant to the effect that the plaintiff/ respondent has not disclosed the fact as to from whom he had purchased the disputed plot. As a matter of fact, Babu Ram sold the disputed plot to the plaintiff-respondent during the pendency of the civil suit No.53 of 20.02.2010. Regarding the plot in dispute, earlier civil suit No.53 of 20.02.2010 titled as Babu Ram versus Ganga Singh was filed by Babu Ram and when no stay was granted to Babu Ram, he illegally sold the same to Rakesh Kumar despite the fact that Babu Ram himself was neither owner nor in possession of the same. The plaintiff is fully aware of the fact regarding the pendency of the civil suit No.53.

6. Ld. Counsel further submits that it was also duly averred and proved by the appellant that on the disputed plot and adjacent to the disputed plot, since 1977 Gurudwara is in existence and earlier the property No. of the said Gurudwara was 272 Ward No. 10 and now the same has been given the property No.279/4. The Gurudwara was known by the name of 'Gurudwara Banda Bahadur' and Charan Singh son of Sunder Singh was made Sewadar