IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.03.2026 Sher Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Isham Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sanjay Verma, Ms. Neha and Ms. Yogita Soni, Advocates for the respondents.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by defendant No.1 against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 herein, for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction, has been decreed by both the District Courts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a civil suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove illegal construction from the portion of the street; and further a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from raising any type of construction over the suit land as mentioned in para 1 of the plaint forcibly and illegally in any manner, now or in future.

3. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff in the plaint that inhabitants of the village including the plaintiff are facing inconvenience in ingress and outgress to their houses due to the illegal act and conduct of the defendants. Predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, namely, Chamela was the owner in possession of Bara comprised in khasra No. 1272/2 (0- 15); and now the plaintiff-Isham Singh, son of Chamela alongwith Mohinder, Nafe Singh, and Sandeep are owners in possession to the said Bara. While defendant No.1 is owner in possession of Bara comprising in khasra No. 1235; defendant No. 2 is the owner in possession of bara comprised in khasra No. 1236 which are abutted above the said rasta as fully mentioned in para 1 of the plaint.

4. It was further pleaded that previously one Lajja Ram had filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act against the defendants and father of the plaintiff in which case demarcation was conducted and it was found that father of the plaintiff was not in illegal and unauthorized possession. On the basis of the said Demarcation Report dated 17.04.1999, ejectment order dated 13.05.1999 was passed against the defendants. Execution was filed against the defendants; and Court of Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Kaithal had issued warrants of possession in respect of the land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint. Pursuant to the same, defendants had handed over vacant possession of the above said land vide rapat roznamcha dated 07.08.2003. However thereafter defendants had again encroached upon street/passage from which they had been previously evicted. It was contended that defendants in collusion with defendant No.3 had again sought to raise construction upon the rasta forcibly and illegally. Defendants had been repeatedly requested not to encroach upon the street/gali/passage by raising any type of construction, but the defendants were adamant and had finally refused to do so on 05.06.2014. Hence, present suit was filed on 03.07.2014.

5. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal had decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2017 in the following terms: -

“In sequel to my findings in the above stated issues the suit of plaintiff succeeds and is hereby decreed. A decree for mandatory injunction is passed in favour of plaintiff and defendants are directed to remove the illegal construction from the portion of the street as per demarcation report Ex- PA and handover the vacant possession to gram panchayat within 2 months from the date of judgment. Further defendants are restrained from raising any type of construction over the suit property detailed in para no. 1 of the plaint forcibly and illegally. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the records after due compliance.”

6. The Civil Appeal