IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 27.01.2025 Pronounced on : 06.02.2025 Sultan Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Satbir Singh ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Gautam Kaile, Advocate for the appellant.

ALKA SARIN, J. CM-9958-C-2023

1. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application seeking condonation of 352 days in refiling the appeal is allowed. The delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

RSA-2838-2023

2. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgments and decrees dated 17.04.2017 and 28.02.2022 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively, dismissing the suit filed by him.

3. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellant herein filed a suit for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The parties trace their lineage to a common ancestor, Sadhu Ram, who had two sons - Sher Singh and Ganga Ram. While the plaintiff-appellant is the son of Sher Singh, the defendant-respondent is the grandson of Ganga Ram. According to the plaintiff-appellant the Gram Panchayat of Village Amin, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra had allotted gair mumkin baras to Sadhu Ram and his son Ganga Ram. At that time Sadhu Ram and Ganga Ram were living separately and paying Chulha tax separately. During the lifetime of Sadhu Singh the plot came in the share of father of the plaintiff, Sher Singh, who constructed a house over the bara in question out of his own funds. The plaintiff-appellant had reconstructed the house twice and had given it on rent. It was alleged that the defendant-respondent had threatened the tenant and interfered in the possession though he had no right to do so. Hence, the suit. In his written statement the defendant-respondent raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, estoppel, jurisdiction, time barred, concealment of true and material facts and misuse of the process of law. According to the defendant-respondent the plaintiff- appellant had no concern with the house in question as Sher Singh and Ganga Ram had partitioned the suit property mutually in their lifetime and portion marked ABCD fell to the share of Ganga Ram and portion marked as BEDF fell to the share of Sher Singh and after the death of Ganga Ram the defendant- respondent along with his brother became owners in possession of portion marked ABCD and had constructed one room, kitchen, bathroom, stair case and courtyard. No replication was filed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff got no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present suit ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the Court ? OPD

6. Relief.

5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.2017 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2022. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that both the Courts have erred in dismissing his suit. It is urged that the suit property was owned by the plaintiff-appellant and that the defendant- respondent had forcibly taken its possession from the tenant and therefore the suit deserved to be decreed.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case the plaintiff-appellant had come to Court with the plea that the suit property was owned by him. How