IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

246 Reserved on : 24.02.2026 Pronounced on : 06.03.2026 Uploaded on : 06.03.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes

1. RSA-3228-2017 Harbilas (Deceased) through his LRs ...... Appellant versus Balbir Singh ...... Respondent

2. RSA-3420-2017 Sarwan Dass ...... Appellant versus Balbir Singh ...... Respondent

3. RSA-5004-2017 Gurmail Singh ...... Appellant versus Balbir Singh ...... Respondent

4. RSA-5005-2017 Ashok Kumar and others ...... Appellants versus Balbir Singh ...... Respondent

5. RSA-569-2024 Mohinder Singh Deceased through his LRs ...... Appellant versus Balbir Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Akshay Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate for the appellant in RSA-3228-2017 RSA-3420-2017 RSA-5004-2017 & RSA-5005-2017.

Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate for the appellant in RSA-569-2024.

Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sinha, Advocate for the respondent(s) in all cases.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

1. By way of instant order, I intend to dispose off the afore-

captioned 05 appeals.

2. Senior counsel appearing for the parties are ad idem that all the appeals involve same issue(s) in the background of similar facts. For convenience, RSA-3420-2017 is being treated as lead case.

3. Defendant is in appeal aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below.

4. Plaintiff filed suit for possession. As per the plaintiff, he along with other co-sharers is owner of the suit property. Defendant was in possession as a tenant over suit property in lieu of supply of cattle manure to the owners of the land. Defendant failed to supply the cattle manure and was served with legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminating tenancy. Plaintiff, thus claims possession by ejectment of defendant from the suit property.

5. Suit was contested by the defendant. As per the defendant, neither plaintiff is owner of the suit land, nor defendant is tenant. Defendant is occupying the property in dispute as owner. Forefathers of the plaintiff migrated from Pakistan in the year 1947. Forefathers of the defendants are inhabitants of village prior to partition and are living on the suit land after constructing their residential house. Their possession is to the knowledge of the plaintiff and their predecessors-in-interest.

Plaintiff is not entitled for possession of the suit land.

6. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of the First Instance framing following issues:-

“1A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP.

2A. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

OPD

3A. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?OPD

4A. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

5A. Whether the suit is within time?OPP

6A. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD

7A. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD

8A. Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the Court?OPD.

9A. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?OPD

10A. Relief.”

7. Plaintiffs in order to prove their ownership tendered jamabandi for the year 2000-01 Ex.P-1. Plaintiff proved copy of legal notice Ex.P-2 and reply thereto Ex.P-3 sent at the behest of defendant.

8. Court of the First instance while returning findings on issue No.1 and 2 held that the plaintiff successfully proved his ownership over the suit property. Defendant failed to rebut the same. Defendant claimed himself to be owner in possession, but failed to lead any evidence qua his title and is thus liable to be evicted. Court of the First Instance accordingly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

9. The aforesaid findings stand affirmed by the Lower Appellate C