IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :- 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement:-26.08.2025 Parkash and Others … Appellants Versus Raj Kumar @ Raja (Since deceased) through LRs and Others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The appellants/plaintiffs have instituted the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘RSA’), challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.04.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind. By the said judgment, the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents/defendants and set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.03.1992 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Narwana in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the reversal of the lower Court’s findings, the appellants have approached this Court seeking restoration of the decree granted in their favour.

2. Briefly facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction claiming themselves to be owners in possession of the suit land and that defendants are trying to interference in the possession of the plaintiffs and for mandatory injunction to remove the construction if they have raised any, on the plot in dispute. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants have collected bricks at the spot and wanted to raise construction for which they have no legal right to do so, hence the suit.

3. Suit was contested by defendants No.1 and 2 by denying the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and has alleged that vide sale deed dated 30.06.1980, plaintiff-Parkash Kaur has sold the suit land to Smt. Saroj Devi and thereafter Saroj Devi sold the plot vide sale deed dated 23.01.1981 to Sadhu Ram, who exchanged the land with answering defendants in the month of December, 1981 and since then are in possession of suit land and they further raised plea that they are raising construction over plot in dispute legally and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Defendants No.3 to 6 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs, whereas names of defendants No.7 and 8 were struck off as per statement of counsel for the plaintiffs dated 22.07.1988.

5. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs reiterating the contents of the plaint and denying the averments of the written statement. From the pleading of the parties following issues were framed which are as under as:-

framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants at No.2 are owners in possession of the suit property as alleged?OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved then whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the suit does not lie in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the suit is mala-fride? OPD

5. Whether the suit property was sold to Saroj per sale deed dated

30.06.1980 and thereafter Smt. Saroj Devi sold the same to Sadhu s/o Manhar on 23.01.1981, if so its effect? OPD

6. Whether Sadhu has transferred the suit land in favour of defendant set No. 1 in December, 1981, if so its effect? OPD

7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

8. Relief.

6. Both the parties were given opportunities to lead the evidence and after hearing the arguments, the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Narwana decreed the suit and granted mandatory injunction, directing defendant No.1 to deliver back the possession of plot in dispute to the plaintiffs as defendants have undertaken by way of surety bond dated 22.09.1989 that they would remove the construction raised on the plot in dispute without claiming compensation.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so passed, an appeal was filed and the learned Additional District Judge, Jind allowed the appeal by setting-aside the judgment and decree so passed by the learn