IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

218 RSA-1962-2012(O&M)

Date of decision: 26.02.2026 Laxmi Devi & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Purushotam Dass (since deceased) thr LRs & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate Mr. Abhishek, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiffs No.7 to 10 are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the ld. Courts below whereby suit filed by the appellants for declaration has been dismissed by both Courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed the instant Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs were:

“……seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiff no. 1 to 6 are owner in possession of the house bearing municipal unit no. X- 760/12 as shown in the site plan in red colour by mark A B C D and bounded as under:

East: House of Patash Kaur.

West: House Smt. Laxmi etc plaintiff no. 7 to 11 and Private joint passage.

North: House of Puran, Sukbir etc.

South: Gher Sharma ji And similarly plaintiff No. 7 to 11 are owner in possession of house bearing municipal unit No. X-760/11 shown in yellow colour by mark D I G F bounded as under:

East: House of Dhanno Devi etc plaintiff no. 1 to 6.

West: House of Shish Ram.

North: Private Passage.

South : Gher Sharma ji Both the above-mentioned houses are situated in khasra no. 693 min (1-4) and defendant no. 2 has executed a registered sale deed no. 1148 dated 7.5.2004 in favour of defendant no. 1 by virtue of which he has sold out the private joint passage for which he had no right to do so. Thus, the aforesaid sale deed is illegal null and void to the extent of sale of private joint passage.”

3. Consequentially, permanent injunction was prayed against the defendants for restraining them from causing interference in usage of joint rasta, by unauthorisedly encroaching the same.

4. It was the pleaded case of the appellants/plaintiffs that their predecessors-in-interest had settled down on the suit land comprising in Khasra No.693 about 50 years ago. Since then, the plaintiffs had been in continuous possession of the suit land without any interference for the last more than 50 years and since then girdawari is continuing in their names. In the Revenue Record, Maha Singh; Smt. Dhanno/plaintiff No.1; Jai Singh, husband of plaintiff No.7; and Shish Ram/defendant No.2/Uncle of the appellants (owner in possession of his Municipal Unit no. X 760/10); were shown to be in cultivating possession of the suit land jointly; and in possession of their respective shares. The suit land comprised in khasra No.693 min is measuring 1 kanal 4 marla which comes to approximately 720 square yards. They have constructed houses in the suit land as per their convenience such that three municipal units i.e. X-760/10 (measuring 258 Sq. Yards, belonging to defendant no. 2); X-760/11 (measuring 129 Sq. Yards, belonging to Plaintiffs no. 7 to 11); and X-760/12 (measuring 129 Sq. Yards, belonging to Plaintiffs No. 1 to 6); were carved out. They also left a 6 ft. wide joint private rasta for their ingress and outgress, which is shown in green colour and marked as CGHI in site plan (Ex. P-1). Said Rasta is joint for plaintiffs and defendant no. 2. It was reiterated that plaintiffs No.1 to 6 along with plaintiffs No.7 to 11 are in possession of 258 square yards of land i.e. each is having 129 square yards. Similarly, defendant No.2 was also owner in possession to the extent of 258 yd.². For the ingress and outgress of their houses, the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 had left some portion of land measuring about 6 feet wide as joint passage (marked CGHI in the Site Plan). 5. It was further pleaded that Defendant No.2 had sold his house to defendant No.1 vide registered Sale Deed No.1148 dated 07.05.2004. However, defendant No.2 had sold an area of 373.33 square yards instead of

258 square yards in t