IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.03.2026 Kamla and others ......Appellants V/s Anil …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

This is defendants’ appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sonipat, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2022 passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharkhoda, vide which the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction, was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was owner in possession of house No. 622 measuring 60 sq. yards (fully described in the plaint) [hereinafter referred to as `the house in question’] having purchased the same from one Shishpal son of Suraj Bhan, vide a registered sale deed dated 22.06.2009. It was claimed that physical possession of the house in question was delivered to the plaintiff on 22.06.2009 itself and since then the plaintiff had been owner in possession of the said house. It was asserted that on 19.08.2014, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the house in question, whereupon the plaintiff had moved an application to the police. The police reached the spot and asked the defendants to refrain from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the house in question, but once the police had left, the defendants had again started repeating the said threats. It was further claimed that on the intervening night of 19.08.2014, the defendants had stolen Shahteer, Bricks, Windows, Doors, Karis and Stone Sheets. Thereupon, the plaintiff had moved an application to the police on 20.08.2014, but neither any action was taken nor any FIR was lodged. It was further asserted that the defendants had no right, title or interest in respect of the house in dispute.

4. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi and cause of action. On merits, the factum of ownership of the plaintiff over the house in question on the basis of sale deed dated 22.06.2009 was denied. It was further asserted that the vendor of the plaintiff had already sold 1/3 share i.e., about 31 sq yards to one Lichhmi Devi on 21.07.2005 and said Lichhmi Devi sold the same to defendant No.3. It was further claimed that being a co-sharer, one Raj Bala, who was also owner to the extent of 1/3 share of the house in question, had sold her share to defendant No.3 vide sale deed dated 26.08.2009 and had also executed an affidavit in this regard. It was, thus, claimed that the said Shishpal had been left with no share in the house in question and rather, he was residing at Narela, Delhi for the last many years. It was asserted that the said Shishpal had no right, title or interest in the house in question and that the sale deed dated 22.06.2009 was a forged document.

4.1 It was further the case of the defendants that the said Shishpal had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sonepat on 11.12.2014. It was further asserted that the plaintiff had never remained in actual physical possession of the house in question.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the house mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or