##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Isham Singh . . . . Appellant Vs.

Ram Kishan . . . . Respondent ****

Reserved on: 10.03.2026 Pronounced on: 12.03.2026 Pronounced fully/opera4ve part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sachin Mi al, Advocate and Mr. Arnav Mi al, Advocate for the respondent.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 19.10.1996, whereby the suit filed by the plain,ff–respondent Ram Kishan for declara,on with consequen,al relief of permanent injunc,on was decreed, re- versing the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1991 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit and allowing the counter-claim of the defendant–ap-

pellant Isham Singh.

2. Learned counsel for both the par,es have been heard and the pa-

per-book has been carefully perused.

3. Facts of the Case : The par,es to the present li,ga,on are real brothers. The dispute pertains to a Bara and the building constructed thereon situated within the Abadi Deh of Village Gharaunda, District Karnal, as detailed in the plaint.

4. According to the plain,ff–respondent, he along with the defen- dant–appellant was the joint owner in possession of the suit property and both of them had been using the same for common purposes without any dispute. It was further pleaded that a room on the southern side of the suit property had been constructed jointly out of common funds. The grievance of the plain,ff was that the defendant was threatening to dispossess him forcibly from the suit property. Consequently, the plain,ff filed the present suit seeking a declara,on that he was joint owner in possession of the suit property along with the defen- dant and sought a consequen,al decree of permanent injunc,on restraining the defendant from dispossessing him from join possession.

5. Defence and Counter-Claim : The defendant–appellant contested the suit and denied the claim of joint ownership of the plain,ff. It was pleaded that the suit property was owned jointly by the defendant Isham Singh and Naseeb Singh in equal shares and that the plain,ff had no right, ,tle or interest therein. The defendant further raised the plea that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. It was pointed out that earlier Civil Suit No.452 of 1981 (decided on 30.07.1983) had been filed by one Surjit Singh against five defen- dants including the present plain,ff and defendant. In that suit, the present plain,ff Ram Kishan and the present defendant Isham Singh were impleaded as defendant Nos.3 and 2 respec,vely. In the said earlier suit, it was held that Isham Singh and Naseeb Singh were owners in possession of the suit property in equal shares, and the said finding was upheld up to this Court. The defendant also pleaded that in the said earlier suit both the present par,es had filed a joint wri en statement admi?ng the ownership and possession of Isham Singh and Naseeb Singh.

6. Apart from the above defence, the defendant also set up a counter-claim, asser,ng that the plain,ff was merely permi ed to use the prop-

erty with the consent of the owners and was in possession only as a licensee. It was pleaded that the licence had been revoked prior to filing of the wri en statement. Accordingly, the defendant sought a decree direc,ng the plain,ff to vacate the suit property.

7. Proceedings Before the Trial Court: The trial Court ini,ally treated the issue of res judicata as a preliminary issue and dismissed the suit on 19.09.1987 on that ground. However, in appeal the learned First Appellate Court vide order dated 24.11.1988 held that the ques,on of ,tle stood concluded by res judicata but remanded the ma er to the trial Court for adjudica,on on the nature of possession of the plain,ff for the purpose of the relief of injunc,on. The Regular Second Appeal filed ag