IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

126 RSA-2802-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.02.2025 Surjit Kumar & Another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Balbir Chand ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. S.K.S. Bedi, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The defendants are in second appeal against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein, for possession of house in dispute on the basis of title; and for permanent injunction, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants as “defendants”

and the respondent as “plaintiff”.

3. Brief facts of the case set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is owner of the house in dispute (measuring 10.7 marlas i.e. 307 yards) on the basis of sale deed dated 14.02.2017whereby defendant No.1 Surjit Kumar/ the then owner in possession of house in dispute, had sold the same to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. At the time of execution of the sale deed, the defendant No.1 put the plaintiff into possession over the house in dispute and after taking possession of the house in dispute, the plaintiff locked the same as the plaintiff is resident of Chandigarh and taking benefit of absence of plaintiff and his family members, the defendants illegally and forcibly occupied the house of the plaintiff by breaking the locks. The plaintiff came to know about the said illegal occupation of his house by the defendants on 05.05.2017 when he visited at village Talania to see his house. The plaintiff also convened a panchayat of respectables on 08.05.2017 at 07:00 pm for getting vacation of the said house from the defendants, but the defendants instead of handing over the possession of the house in dispute to the plaintiff, abused the plaintiff with filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, the plaintiff had also moved an application to SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib on 12.05.2017 against the defendants and FIR No.101 dated 31.07.2017 under Sections 447,448,506 IPC was registered against defendant No.1 and 3-4 unknown persons. Since then the plaintiff is requesting the defendants to hand over the possession of house in dispute, but they totally refused to accede the request of the plaintiff.

Hence, the present suit.

4. Upon notice the defendants appeared and filed written statement resisting the suit taking various objections on merits and denying the averments in the plaint. The plaintiff filed replication denying the pleas raised by the defendants in their written statement and reiterating his pleas as made in the plaint.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD (5) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed true and material facts from the court?OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD (6-A) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP (7) Relief.”

6. On the basis of the pleadings, and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court decided issues No.1 to 6 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; and issue No.6A in favour of the defendants holding the plaintiff liable to pay ad valorem Court fee; and decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 01.10.2022. The defendants’ appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 01.10.