IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 25.02.2026 Pronounced on: 06.03.2026 Uploaded on: 09.03.2026 Bhagwana and others ….Appellants Versus Mange Ram and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by: Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Tapan Yadav, Advocate with Mr. Gursimrat Sandhu, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J

1. The appellants–defendants, aggrieved by the concurrent judgment and decree dated 17.04.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby the appeal preferred by them was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 29.03.1994 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Bahadurgarh decreeing the suit of the respondents–plaintiffs was affirmed, have approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The respondents–plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the appellants–defendants from forcibly taking possession of the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs is that both parties are permanent residents of Village Shahpur, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak. The plaintiffs claimed to be owners in possession of a plot measuring North 144’, South 122’, East 63’ and West 63’, as shown in the site plan, bounded by Rasta Share Aam towards the East, the house of Nihalu and Aam Rasta towards the West, Shamlat land towards the North and the plot of Bhima towards the South. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs and their forefathers had been using the plot in question for placing khors, parking trolley and agricultural implements, tethering cattle and other allied purposes. The plot also contains a large Faras tree and a grinding circle (grund). According to the plaintiffs, the property is surrounded by a kacha wall about three feet high and the defendants, being quarrelsome by nature, were attempting to forcibly take possession of the portion shown by letters ABCD in the site plan. Despite requests not to interfere with their possession, the defendants refused to desist, compelling the plaintiffs to institute the present suit.

3. Upon notice, the suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 by filing a joint written statement. It was asserted that the plaintiffs or their forefathers were neither owners nor in possession of the land in dispute and that the defendants themselves were in possession of the suit property. According to them, the land was being used for parking tractors and trolleys, storing kurari, tethering cattle and stacking firewood. The existence of any kacha boundary wall was specifically denied and it was stated that there was neither any boundary nor any ‘dol’ of the plot. The defendants further claimed that the predecessors-in-interest of defendant No.1 had planted the Faras tree and installed the lime grinding machine. It was pleaded that defendant No.1 had purchased the property from Smt. Bhaliya daughter of Ramji Lal through a sale deed dated 01.03.1983 and that possession had been delivered to him at the time of sale. The maintainability of the suit and the plaintiffs’ locus standi were also disputed and a plea of estoppel was raised.

4. Defendant No.4 also filed his written statement separately. He had also stated that the plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession over the suit land. This defendant had also taken the same plea as taken by defendant Nos. 1,2, and

3 and 5 to 7 mentioned above and prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.

5. Replication was filed, the plaintiffs reiterated the pleas taken in the plaint and controverted those taken in the written statement. It was categorically stated that Smt. Bhalian daughter of Ramji Lal was not the owner in possession of the property in dispute, rather Ramji Lal was also not the owner of the disputed property and the sale deed, if any, executed by Smt. Bhaliya is illegal and void. It was averred that the lime grinding circle was installed by the predec