IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:24.03.2026 Mal Mohinder Singh (deceased)

through LRs and anr. …..Appellants Vs.

Ajmer Singh and ors. .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate, Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Varinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ajashwar Singh Grewal, Advocate for the caveators/respondents.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present appeal has been filed by the defendants assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit for possession ins(tuted by the plain(ffs–respondents Ajmer Singh and others was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 30.01.2017, and the said findings were affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.02.2025.

2. The case of the plain(ffs, in brief, is that they are owners of the suit property described as gair mumkin land. It is not disputed that earlier a suit for permanent injunc(on filed by them was dismissed on 18.02.2012, wherein the defendants were held to be in permissive possession of the suit property since the year 1975. However, the Court in the said proceedings consciously refrained from adjudica(ng upon the ques(on of (tle and granted liberty to the par(es to seek declara(on of (tle by way of a separate suit. Availing the said liberty, the present suit was ins(tuted seeking possession of the suit property on the basis of ownership.

3. The defendants contested the suit by raising a plea of limita(on and by asser(ng that the father of the plain(ffs had sold land measuring 14 kanals, including the suit land, to defendant Mal Mohinder Singh for a considera(on of ₹26,000/- through a wri(ng dated 15.06.1975 recorded in a bahi, and that possession had been delivered in pursuance thereof. It was thus claimed that the defendants and their predecessors were in possession as owners.

4. Aer framing issues and upon apprecia(on of the evidence led by the par(es on record, the learned trial Court returned a finding that the plain(ffs had successfully established their ownership over the suit property on the basis of revenue record, whereas the defendants had failed to prove any lawful (tle. It was further held that the defendants were in permissive possession and that the wri(ng dated 15.06.1975, being an unregistered document, did not confer any right, (tle or interest in immovable property.

Consequently, the suit for possession was decreed.

5. The learned first Appellate Court, on re-appraisal of the en(re evidence, affirmed the findings of the trial Court. It was no(ced that the Jamabandi for the year 2010–2011 reflected the plain(ffs as co-sharers/co- owners of the suit property, whereas the defendants had no entry in the revenue record. The Appellate Court further held that the wri(ng dated 15.06.1975 relied upon by the defendants could not be treated as a document of transfer, as it was neither registered nor did it contain specific details of the property such as khasra numbers. The Court also examined the effect of the earlier judgment and held that the same did not operate as res judicata, inasmuch as the ques(on of (tle had been expressly le open and the par(es had been granted liberty to seek appropriate relief in separate proceedings. The objec(on regarding non-joinder of other co-

sharers was also rejected by holding that a co-owner is competent to seek possession against a person who is neither owner nor co-sharer.

6. Assailing the concurrent findings, Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated before this Court that the suit is barred by limita(on, that the wri(ng dated 15.06.1975 evidences a valid sale, that the earlier judgment operates as res judicata and that the suit is bad for non-

joinder of necessary par(es.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made and has gone through the record.

8. At the outset, it may be no(ced that both the Courts below have returned concurrent fin