IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *****

RSA-3546-2010 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 Jee Ram deceased through his LRs …….Appellants Versus Balbir Singh and another .….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.V.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs.

Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate and Mr. Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

---

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 16.09.2008 and 15.05.2010 passed by the Courts below; whereby a suit for permanent injunction filed at the instance of appellants/ plaintiffs praying for restraining respondents/ defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession of the suit land, stands dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, the appellants/ plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction with respect to the land measuring 22 kanals 12 marlas bearing Khasra Nos.4//2, 9, 12 and 121//10 situated within the revenue estate of Village Chhajju Nagla, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, with a prayer for restraining the respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over the same. As per for the plaint, deceased father of the plaintiff, namely, Puran Chand, used to cultivate the suit land as ‘gair marusi’ tenant, however, after his death on 03.05.2003, the tenancy rights were inherited to the plaintiff being legal heir and as such he came in possession thereof as ‘gair marusi’ tenant. The plaintiff also relied upon receipt dated 05.05.2003 towards payment of batai, issued in his favour by respondent No.2/ defendant No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No.2’) and thus claimed permanent injunction.

3. Upon notice, a written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No.2 while stating that the suit land was purchased by him from Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vide registered sale deed dated 29.07.1993. After its purchase, half of the land was given on rent to respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 in the year 1998 and the remaining half was in possession of defendant No.2. It was further pleaded that Puran Chand never remained in possession of the suit property as ‘gair marusi’ and as such there was no question of plaintiff being in possession thereof. Defendant No.2 also pleaded that since the entries in the khasra girdwaries were in the name of Puran Chand; compromise Ex. D1 dated 27.04.2022 was entered into and as a result thereof, the entries were to be got corrected in the name of defendant No.2, however, as the proceedings to the same effect were pending before the Revenue authorities, the correction could not be carried out in terms of the said compromise. It was denied that Puran Chand or plaintiff ever paid any batai to defendant No.2 and thus prayed that the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff be dismissed.

4. Upon pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction on the ground as alleged in the plaint ? OPP

2. Whether the suit not maintainable ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi ? OPD

4. Whether the defendant no.2 is owner and is actual physical cultivating possession as alleged ? OPD

5. Whether revenue entry if any in the name of plaintiff are wrong illegal and against the factual position as alleged? OPD 6. Relief.”

5. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2008 dismissed the suit filed at the instance of plaintiff while recording that the plaintiff failed to prove himself to be in cultivating possession of the suit property being ‘gair marusi’ tenant of defendant No.2.

6. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed first appeal, however, the same also came to be dismissed by the Court of learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2010.

Hence, the present appeal.

7. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that th