IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:10.03.2026 MUKHTIARI AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS TURMUKHGIR CHELA LACHHMIGIR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ...RESPONDENTS Present: Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate with Mr. Pritam Singh Sani, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieved by impugned judgment and decree dated 09.02.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra vide which suit preferred by appellants-plaintiffs for permanent injunction was dismissed as well as by dismissal of their appeal by learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.01.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

2. In their suit for permanent injunction, appellants-plaintiffs had claimed to be owner in possession of bara marked ABCD measuring 100’ X 80’, duly described in plaint and prayed that respondent-defendant be restrained from interfering in their peaceful possession and from raising any construction over the same. It was alleged that appellants-plaintiffs are using suit property for domestic purposes i.e. for storing agriculture produce and for parking their tractor-trolley. It was claimed that seven kikkar trees are standing over the suit land and a room has been constructed on east-southern corner along with Samadhi of their uncle named Parsa on north-western corner of suit property. It was claimed that respondent-defendant’s Dera Baragian is situated on western side of suit property and respondent- defendant is its Mohtmim which is interfering with the possession of appellants-plaintiffs. It was asserted that earlier also one Sahjada had tried to interfere with their possession and suit for permanent injunction was filed, which was decreed in their favour. Accordingly, decree for permanent injunction was sought.

4. Respondent-defendant filed written statement, took number of preliminary objections as regards to maintainability of the suit. It is asserted that suit is not maintainable as, boundaries were wrongly mentioned, appellants-plaintiffs have concealed documents relating to properties of Abadi-deh and measurement of property was also stated to be wrong. It is asserted that as per village map, Dera belonging to respondent-defendant is marked as property No.1 measuring 86’ on eastern side, 93’ on western side, 113’ on southern side and 118’ on northern side in field book prepared to enlist abadi-deh properties (Ex.D-5). It was claimed that Samadhi is of Baba Paltu Dass and not of Parsa as claimed by appellants-plaintiffs. It was asserted that appellants-plaintiffs have never been in possession of suit property and that respondent-defendant was not a party in previous proceeding. Respondent-defendant claimed to be owner in possession over suit property for over 50 years. It was asserted that appellants-plaintiffs preferred present suit since they want to encroach upon suit land by raising construction to fullfill their illegal desires.

5. Following issues were framed from the pleadings of the parties:-

I. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the bara in dispute?OPP II. Whether the defendant wanted to encroach upon the suit property?OPP III. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the Court, if so to what effect?OPD IV. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD V. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD VI. Relief.

6. Appellants-plaintiffs by way of their pleadings as well as by evidence have sought ownership and possession over suit property to be open, hostile and without interference of any person, which clearly goes to show that appellants-plaintiffs are not claiming ownership on the basis of some title, rather they are claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession. Perusal of evidence led by appellants-plaintiffs goes to show that they are claiming ownership of Sa