IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4683-2000 (O&M)

Reserved on 09.10.2025 Date of decision: 13.10.2025 Mohinder Singh ...Appellant Versus Kulwant Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The defendant of the original suit is in Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the suit ins%- tuted by the plain%ff – Kulwant Singh, seeking a decree of permanent in- junc%on in respect of the property in dispute, was decreed by the Trial Court on 09.12.1994 and affirmed by the First Appellate Court on

09.10.2000.

2. Trial Court record as available on DMS has been perused. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard. None has put in appear-

ance on behalf of the respondent.

3. For convenience, the par%es are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

4. The plain%ff claimed ownership and possession of the suit land measuring 32 marla, delineated by le6ers ‘ABCD’ in the site plan annexed with the plaint, asser%ng that the defendant had no right, %tle, or interest therein but was a6emp%ng to interfere with his possession. Accordingly, he sought a decree of permanent injunc%on.

5. The defendant contested the claim, denying the plain%ff’s ownership and possession. He asserted ownership and possession over 7 marlas out of the suit property adjoining the house of Mohan Singh and claimed that the remaining 25 marla were owned and possessed by his sis- ter Naranjan Kaur, who had filed a separate suit for injunc%on against the plain%ff.

6. In replica%on, the plain%ff stated that Karam Singh, the com- mon ancestor, had four sons, and in a family par%%on of the abadi land, each son got an equal share. The suit property had fallen to the share of his father Sohan Singh and aAer his death, the plain%ff con%nued in possession thereof.

7. The Trial Court, aAer framing issues and evalua%ng the evid- ence, found that the plain%ff was in possession of the suit property and that, in a suit for permanent injunc%on, adjudica%on of ownership was un- necessary. The Court thus restrained the defendant from interfering with the plain%ff’s possession except in due course of law. The First Appellate Court upheld these findings on reappraisal of evidence.

8. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the ap- pellant argued that, in the absence of proof of par%%on, the par%es were co-sharers, and one co-sharer could not be restrained from exercising rights over joint property. Reliance was placed on Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Punjab 528.

9. The legal proposi%on that one co-sharer cannot seek injunc%on against another, who is also in possession of joint property, is undisputed. However, the said principle is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The defendant never pleaded that the property was joint. On the contrary, he claimed ownership and possession of only 7 marla, while a6ribu%ng ownership and possession of the remaining 25 marla to his sister Naranjan Kaur.

10. The First Appellate Court, upon a detailed apprecia%on of evid-

Yogesh Mehta ence, recorded that the family par%%on stood admi6ed even by the de-

fendant’s witnesses. It found that Naranjan Kaur had been residing in an-

other village since her marriage in 1947 and thus could not be in possession of the suit property. The Court also noted that the defendant had not ap- peared in the witness box and that his son Bhajan Singh (DW2), who de- posed on his behalf, had no personal knowledge of the par%%on or the iden%ty of the alleged 7 marla in defendant’s possession. The tes%mony of defendant’s witnesses was inconsistent and unreliable regarding the de-

marca%on and possession of the alleged por%ons.

11. In view of the above, both the Courts below rightly held that the plain%ff had successfully established his possession over the suit prop- erty, whereas the defendant faile