IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 25.08.2025 Pronounced on: 29.08.2025 Shiv Charan .....Appellant VERSUS Manohar Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate and Mr. Lalit Chander Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff, Shiv Charan, assailing the judgment and decree dated 17.02.1988 passed by the learned trial Court, as well as the judgment and decree dated 20.07.1993 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff for grant of decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his alleged possession over the land measuring 81 Kanals 16 Marlas was dismissed. The concurrent findings of both Courts below are under challenge in the present appeal.

2. The following pedigree is not in dispute and is necessary to appreciate the controversy:

Gordhan = Harbai widow of Gordhan | | | |

|

RamChander = Giarsi (widow) |

___________________________________________________

| | | | |

Ram Devi Sarti Sukh Devi Baldei Chandro Facts of the Case

3. The brief facts emerging from the pleadings are that plaintiff-Shiv Charan instituted a suit against the defendants, including Manohar Singh, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his alleged possession over the land in dispute i.e. land measuring 81 Kanals 16 marlas situated in village Ghatal Maniawas, Tehsil Rewari. The plaintiff asserted that he had been cultivating the land in question as Gair Marusi since the year 1961, and had even installed a tubewell at his own cost for irrigation purposes. It was further claimed that he had been cultivating wheat and vegetables on the disputed land and had reaped crops during Rabi and Kharif seasons of 1982. The plaintiff further contended that by virtue of his long, open, and hostile possession for more than 12 years, to the knowledge of the true owners, he had perfected his title to the suit land by way of adverse possession.

4. It was also pleaded that original owner Smt. Giarsi, widow of Ram Chander son of Govardhan, had contracted a Karewa marriage in 1960 with one Malia, thereby forfeiting her rights in the estate of her deceased husband Ram Chander. According to the plaintiff, Smt. Giarsi thereafter begot children from her new alliance, and never cultivated the land in question. Thus, she had no subsisting right in the property left behind by her deceased husband-Ram Chander. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, having no right, title, or interest, were bent upon forcibly dispossessing him from the disputed land.

5. The defendants contested the suit. They took one of the preliminary objection that the suit is bad of non-joinder of necessary parties. They categorically denied the possession of the plaintiff as Gair Marusi or as owner by way of adverse possession. They further denied the plea of forfeiture of rights by Smt. Giarsi on account of her Karewa marriage, and asserted that she remained owner to the extent of half share of the land inherited from her husband, as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was further pleaded that the answering defendants had purchased the half share of Smt. Giarsi through registered sale deed dated 15.06.1982 and mutation was duly sanctioned in their names on 21.06.1982. Thus, the defendants claimed themselves to be bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, in lawful possession of the property.

6. Replication was filed by the plaintiff denying the stand of the defendants, and reiterating the averments of the plaint.

7. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in dispute as Gair Marusi as alleged? OPP

1-A. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession?