IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

110 RSA-2396-2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: 04.02.2025 Kuldeep Kaur & Another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sarabjit Singh & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate Ms. Liza Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present second appeal has been filed by the defendants No.2 and 3 against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. The appellants/defendants No.2 and 3 shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘appellants’; and the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs as the ‘plaintiffs’.

3. Brief facts of the present case as pleaded by the plaintiffs are that plaintiffs and their nephew Sandeep Singh being co- sharers, filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land measuring 56 kanals 11 marlas, bearing khewat no. 48, khatauni no. 159, khasra no. 124/2min/8-17, 125/2/9-7, 126/2/9-7, 127/16-0, 128min/13-0, situated in the revenue estate of village Nangal, Tehsil and Distt. Faridkot, as per jamabandi for the year 2010-11; and for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land mentioned above illegally, forcibly, without due course of law. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that Sandeep Singh has gone abroad and plaintiffs are cultivating the share of Sandeep Singh and have filed present suit on behalf of Sandeep Singh also. It was averred that to deceive and defraud the plaintiffs and Sandeep Singh, defendants inter-se had procured a sale deed showing the delivery of possession of khasra no. 126/2/9-7, which was not in their possession. Now, defendants want to encroach upon the suit land without any right and also want to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and Sandeep Singh over the suit land, for which they have no right. Plaintiffs and Sandeep Singh are in exclusive possession of the suit land in their own right and being co-sharers. It has been further averred that defendants are threatening the plaintiffs that they will dispossess them forcibly from the suit land and will interfere into their possession over suit land without any right. Earlier, in an attempt to interfere into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, defendant no.2 Kuldeep Kaur had filed an application for correction of khasra girdawari alleging her possession over the above referred 9 kanals 7 marlas of land, but same was dismissed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Kotkapura after visiting the spot and after verifying the possession of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs requested the defendants to admit their claim, but to no effect. Hence, the suit.

4. Upon notice, the appellants had put in appearance before the learned trial Court filing written statement resisting the suit on numerous grounds inter alia contending that the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata; suit against co-sharer does not lie as no injunction can be granted against the co-sharers; the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit; and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as all co-sharers have not been impleaded as party. Various pleas were taken on the merits of the matter as well.

5. Defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte by the learned trial Court as he failed to appear in the Court despite service. Plaintiffs filed replication reiterating the version in the plaint and controverting the averments made in the written statement.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 08.09.2015:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction,