IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 25.02.2025 Harjit Kaur ...... Appellant versus Jasbir Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Plaintiff is in second appeal.

2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of permanent injunction. Plaintiff claimed to be exclusive owner in possession of land measuring 20 kanal 19 marlas as detailed out in the headnote of the plaint. As per the plaintiff, she purchased suit land from Gurbax Singh and Rattan Kaur vide sale deed dated 01.03.2006. It has been claimed by the plaintiff that she was put in exclusive possession of the specific khasra number purchased by her. She claimed that defendant is trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Plaintiff being exclusive owner in possession of the suit property, is entitled for decree of permanent injunction. Defendants contested the suit claiming himself to be owner in possession of 15 kanal 19 marlas of land. It was claimed that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was act of fraud by Amarjit Singh, Rattan Kaur and Piara Singh qua which FIR under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Sadar Phagwara has already come into being.

3. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of first instance framing following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

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

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct or admission and deeds? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from the Hon'ble Court? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is barred U/s 11 CPC and U/o 9 rule 9 CPC?

7. Whether the suit is also barred U/o 2 rule 2 CPC? OPD

8. Relief.”

4. Deciding issue No.1, the Court of the first instance found that the plaintiff failed to prove title of her vendors. Possession of 15 kanal, 10 marlas of land already stood transferred by Gurbachan Singh to Jasbir Singh at the time of execution of sale deed dated 11.06.1990. Mutation in favour of defendant-Jasbir Singh was sanctioned on the basis of sale deed dated 11.06.1990. Plaintiff having failed to prove her exclusive ownership and possession was held not entitled for decree of injunction by the Court of first instance.

5. Unsuccessful plaintiff preferred appeal. Lower Appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that Gurbachan Singh s/o Kartar Singh, Sumittar Kaur d/o of Kartar Singh, Rattan Kaur d/o Kartar Singh and Gurbax Singh s/o Kartar Singh have been depicted as owners in possession of total land measuring 80 kanal

10 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012. Property is still joint between all the co-sharers. Plaintiff claims exclusive possession on the basis of sale deed dated 01.03.2006 Ex.P-1. Defendant claimed to have purchased specific portion on the strength of sale deed dated 11.06.1990. Plaintiff having failed to establish exclusive possession over the suit property, was not entitled for grant of decree of permanent injunction. Instead of maintaining suit for injunction, plaintiff has a remedy to seek partition by meets and bonds.

6. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

7. Counsel for the appellant is not in a position to dispute that even if the case of the plaintiff is taken on its face value, the plaintiff would at the most become co-sharer along with the defendant. Full Bench of this Court in Ram Chander vs. Bhim Singh and others, reported as 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 685, dealt with the issue of purchase of specific khasra number out of joint khata observing as under:-

“17. In order