IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-441-2025 (O&M)

(125)

Reserved on:10.09.2025 Pronounced on:- 17.09.2025 RAJ SINGH AND ANOTHER … Appellants Versus ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS ... Respondents -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Praagbir Singh Dhindsa, Advocate, For the appellants.

Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Yashpal Sharma, and Ms. Radhika Sharma, Advocates, For the respondents.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The appellants/defendants/counter-claimants filed this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, dated 21.11.2024.

2. Briefly, respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs over the suit land measuring 1 bigha 6 biswas comprised in Khewat No.118, Khatoni No.196-197 bearing Khasra No.1111(0-5) and 1177 (1-1) situated within the revenue estate of Village Handesra, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali and from changing the nature by raising construction or in any other manner on the allegations that they are owners in possession of suit land. Previously, the same was jointly owned by plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in the suit land. The previous civil suit was filed by plaintiffs as well as defendant-Hardev Singh. The matter was compromised and both the suits were decided in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 12.11.2001 and the suit land fell to the share of the plaintiffs. Mutation was also entered and sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs. The matter has been settled between the parties up to highest Court. Defendants are out to take forcible possession over the suit land.

3. Defendants contested the suit claiming that defendant No.1 is co-owner to the extent of half share in the suit land as per compromise dated 27.07.1992 and judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court on 12.11.2001 is based upon that compromise. The impugned entries in the revenue record are contrary and are liable to be corrected. They also filed a counter claim claiming Hardev Singh to be the owner in possession of suit land to the extent of one half share and claiming separate possession by way of partition of the same and permanent injunction restraining plaintiffs from alienating the suit land beyond their one half share to any other person.

4. Plaintiffs filed replication as well as reply to the counter claim reiterating the contents of the plaint and denying the averments of the written statement as well as counter claim and has specifically pleaded that compromise was modified by the Court vide decree dated 12.11.2001, which has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2002.

5. From the pleadings the parties, the following issues were framed on 15.01.2010:-

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

2. Whether the defendant is entitled to relief as claimed in the counter claim

3. Relief. ?

6. In order to prove these issues, the parties were granted opportunities to lead respective evidence.

7. After hearing the arguments, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dera Bassi vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2014 has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from interfering into the possession of plaintiffs and from dispossessing the plaintiffs from changing the nature of suit land by raising construction or in any other manner and counter claim of the defendants was dismissed.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so passed, appellants/defendants preferred the appeal and learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2024 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court below.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed.

10. Notice of motion of the appeal was issued.

11. Record was requi