IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :17.02.2026 ARJAN SINGH AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS MAJOR SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellants.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs for permanent injunction was dismissed and the counter-claim preferred by the respondents-defendants was allowed. The first appeal filed by the appellants- plaintiffs was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib. 2. The appellants-plaintiffs claimed themselves to be owners in possession of the suit land described in the headnote of the plaint. It was pleaded that the respondents-defendants, who are influential persons and owner of adjoining land, in connivance with each other were attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession of the appellants-plaintiffs and had tried to raise wall over the suit land. It was asserted that the respondents-defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit land and, as they were forcibly attempting to take possession and were not admitting the claim of the appellants-plaintiffs, the suit for permanent injunction was filed.

3. The respondents-defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and raised several preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit. It was asserted that the appellants-plaintiffs, in connivance with each other, had encroached upon the agricultural land of the respondents-defendants comprised in Rectangle No. 237, Killa Nos. 16/2 (5-12), 16/1 (2-8) and 25 (8-0). It was further pleaded that the appellants-plaintiffs had also encroached upon the agricultural land owned by the respondents-defendants comprised in Rectangle No. 251, Killa No. 6 (8-0). That on coming to know about the encroachment, the respondents-defendants moved an application for demarcation on 05.11.2014 whereupon demarcation was conducted finding encroachment over defendants land. The demarcation was again conducted on 08.06.2017, wherein also it was found that the appellants-plaintiffs had encroached upon the land of the respondents-defendants to the extent of 6 feet 5 inches in Killa No. 16/1 and 5 feet in Killa No. 25 of Rectangle No. 237, and 6 to 7 feet in Killa No. 6 of Rectangle No. 251. It was further asserted that the appellants-plaintiffs had wrongly amalgamated the said encroached land with their own land. Accordingly, the respondents-defendants filed a counter-claim seeking removal of the encroachment and possession of the encroached portion. Through the counter-claim, the respondents-defendants sought possession of 14 marlas of agricultural land, as noted above, which was found to be encroached upon by the appellants-plaintiffs vide demarcation report dated 08.06.2017.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from raising/constructing the Watt in the land of the plaintiffs as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, as being prayed for? OPP

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

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standie to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from the Court? OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?

OPD

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad under the various provision of CPC? OPD

7. Whether the Counter-claimant/respondents-defendants are entitled for the re