IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 11, 2026 Bhanwar Singh through his LRs and others ...Appellants VERSUS Hukmi @ Hukam Singh through his LRs and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms.Amandeep Kaur and Ms.Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocates for the appellants.

Mr.A.P.Bhandari and Ms.Bhargavi, Advocates for the respondents.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellants (who were defendants No.1 to 4 before trial Court) to assail the judgment dated

08.02.1991 passed by learned First Appellate Court.

The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-

That, initially respondent No.1-Hukmi @ Hukam Singh s/o Sohan Lal (plaintiff before the trial Court) had filed a suit for issuance of permanent injunction, thereby, retraining the appellants (defendants No.1 to 4 before the trial Court) from interfering in their cultivating possession over the land measuring 62 Kanal 19 Marla, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of the plaint. Also, it is averred in the plaint that earlier Heta and Sohan Lal, sons of Har Pal along with Ram Kishore, who was proforma-defendant No.5 (respondent No.2 herein{since deceased}) were in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenants. Heta and Sohan Lal were predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent No.1. Defendants No.1 to 4 intended to interfere in their possession over the suit land.

The suit was contested by the present appellants, who inter alia pleaded that they had purchased specific killa numbers to the extent of 13 Kanal 2 Marla, comprised in Rect. No.267 Killa No.2, min-south (3-12) 12 min North (3-13), 9 min East (5-17) from some of the co-sharers of the Shamlat Patti Desi vide sale deed executed and registered on 28.08.1973 and actual physical possession was delivered to them and they are in exclusive possession of the same, as owners thereof.

On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed:-

“1) Whether the plaintiff along with Ram Kishore is in cultivating possession as tenant of the suit land, as alleged?OPP.

2) Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD

3) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus-standi to file the present suit?OPD

4) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD

5) Whether the suit is not valued properly for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD

6) Relief.”

The evidence was adduced by the respective parties. After hearing counsel for the parties and on appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned trial Court held that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is proved to be in possession of the suit land, except 13 Kanal 2 Marla of the same, which has been purchased by the contesting defendants No.1 to 4-appellants, who are in possession of the same, to that extent. Consequently, learned trial Court decreed the suit partly vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.1987 and passed the decree for permanent injunction, thereby, restraining appellants-defendants No.1 to 4 from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and proforma defendant No.5 (respondent No.2) over the suit land, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of the plaint, excluding the land, as prescribed in paragraph No.3 of the plaint, measuring 13 Kanal 2 Marla.

Being aggrieved, plaintiff-respondent No.1 had filed the appeal, which was accepted vide judgment dated 08.02.1991 and after modifying the judgment and decree 30.05.1987, learned Appellate Court had granted a decree for permanent injunction, in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and proforma defendant No.5-respondent No.2 Ram Kishore, thereby, restraining the appellants-defendants No.1 to 4, from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendant, over whole of the land measuring 62 Kanal 19 Marla. However, it was also observed by the Appellate Court that the contesting defendants shall be at liberty to take possession of the same, in due c