IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 05.02.2025 Sultan ...... Appellant versus Sada Ram (since deceased) through his LRs and ors. …Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Himani Sarin, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.1(iii).

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Sahil Mehendiratta, Advocate for the respondent.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Defendant is in second appeal aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner of the land in dispute and further sought decree of possession seeking directions to the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property. Plaintiff claimed that suit property bearing khasra No.369 and 399 was jointly owned by plaintiff, Ishwar and Man Singh. They were in possession to the extent of equal share in one half of the property. The other half portion of the property was owned and possessed by Ram Kunwar s/o Lacchi Ram. All the co-

sharers sold part of the property adjoining road. The co-sharers got engaged in lis which was compromised on 31.03.1981. As per the terms of the said compromise, Ram Kunwar co-sharer came in possession of part of khasra No.369. Man Singh came in possession of 64 feet wide property adjoining road, in which he constructed 06 shops. Ishwar co-sharer came in possession of 101 sq. feet wide plot in which 10 shops are there. Plaintiff got 33 sq. feet of the property adjoining road, in which 03 shops have been constructed. 17 feet each paths were left to go behind. The same has been depicted with red colour in the site plan. Plaintiff filled foundation of his plot. Contesting defendants purchased land from Ishwar vide registered sale deed dated 22.09.1981 and started raising construction. The same was objected to by the plaintiff. The matter went to police station.

3. Plaintiff claimed that the plot which came to his possession has been possessed by the defendant and sought decree of possession.

4. Suit was contested by defendant No.1, who claimed that plaintiff has already sold more than his share. No compromise was arrived at between Ishwar and Man Singh as claimed. Ishwar is in possession of disputed land marked by ‘H’ since the very beginning. Ishwar sold land on the basis of his ownership to the contesting defendant for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.21,000/-. Possession was handed over to the answering defendant, who has constructed a room and boundary wall in the same. Construction was completed by 02.08.1983. Thus, the present suit filed on 29.11.1984 was beyond limitation.

5. On the basis of pleadings, Court of the first instance framed following issues:-

“1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP

2) If issue No.1 is proved, then whether the defendants No,1 & 2 are not exclusive owners and in possession of the suit land even after its sale from Ishwar, defendant No.3, as alleged in the plaint? OPP

3) Whether there was a compromise on 31.3.1981 between the plaintiff and defendant No.3 as alleged in para No.3 of the plaint and the plaintiff thereafter became owner in possession as alleged in para No.7 of the plaint? OPP

4) Whether the plaintiff has disposed of the land out of the khewat exceeding his share if so, to what effect?

OPP

5) Whether the defendants No.1 & 2 are bona fide purchases for consideration, if so, to what effect?

OPD

6) Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit ? OPD

7) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

8) Whether the suit is filed in collusion with the defendant No.3, if so, to what effect? OPD

9) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

10) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD

11) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD

12) Wheth