IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.08.2025 Rajinder Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Amarjit Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant through V.C. None for the respondents.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana; whereby Civil Appeal filed by respondent/plaintiff against dismissal of his suit for permanent injunction by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2012, has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana was in error in passing the impugned judgment and decree by ignoring the fact that respondent No.1 had concealed the factum of compromise from the learned appellate Court. It is submitted that the Learned Lower Court has specifically held that the above said suit is not maintainable against the co-sharer who is in joint possession with the plaintiff-respondents and so the appellant cannot be restrained from alienating the suit property. The suit is also not maintainable qua the relief of dispossessing the plaintiffs and it is admitted fact that plaintiffs and appellants are in joint possession of the suit property and respondent cannot be dispossessed from the suit property when appellant has already admitted the factum of same and he never threatened them from dispossessing them illegally. Even otherwise, he has filed partition proceedings before the Court of Tehsil Ludhiana (West). The Learned Lower appellate court had failed consider the abovesaid fact and illegally and wrongly reversed the findings of the Learned Trial Court.

3. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed;

and the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.08.2013 be set aside.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant.

5. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail.

6. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs and defendants are admittedly joint owners in possession/co-sharers of the suit land as per Jamabandi for the year 2005-06. The land in dispute has never been partitioned. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant/appellant had threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them from the suit land and had threatened to raise construction over the same. As such, plaintiffs had filed present suit on 24.05.2011 for permanent injunction “restraining the defendant himself, through his attorneys, assignees, servants, or any body else on his behalf from raising any construction in order to change the nature of the land comprised in Khewat no.427 Khatauni no.496, Khasra no.10318, Khatauni no.497 Khasra no.10318, as per jamabandi for the years 2005-06 situated at village Kila Raipur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and from dispossessing or causing to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly, illegally or in any manner whatsoever from the above said land and further restraining the defendant from alienating any specific portion out of the said property without getting the same partitioned, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence.”

7. Vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2012, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by accepting the contention of the defendants that the matter had been compromised between the plaintiffs and the defendants vide writing dated 17.03.2009 as per which, Memorandum of Partition Ex.D1 was duly executed between the parties. The learned trial Court held that the said Memorandum Ex.D1 was drafted at the instance of the plaintiff No.2 Parminder Singh on behalf of the other plaintiffs, and he had signed the same in sound mind. Moreover, plaintiffs had themselves raised construction of suit land without prior permission of the defendants. It was further held th