IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-1371-2025 (O&M) Reserved on:-14.10.2025 Date of Decision : 27.10.2025 Sahib Singh and Another ....Appellants VERSUS Malika Arora and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate and Ms. Gagan Bir Kaur, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate for contesting respondents No.1 to 4.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants– defendants, Sahib Singh and another, against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs–respondents, Mallika Arora and others, who are the legal representatives of late Tejpal Singh, has been decreed for possession and permanent injunction in respect of the property in dispute.

2. The plaintiffs–respondents, who are the widow and children of late Tejpal Singh, filed a suit for possession of plot and house measuring three kanals, bearing Khasra No. 12R/16/1 (3–0), Khewat No. 469 and Khatauni No. 578/1, as per Jamabandi for the year 2008–2009, situated in village Faizpura, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, along with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing or changing the nature of the suit property illegally, forcibly, and without due course of law.

Brief Facts

3. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that Tejpal Singh, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 to 4, was the owner of the suit property as per the revenue record. Tejpal Singh had purchased the said land from Mohan Singh, son of Natha Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 15.05.1974 for a consideration of ₹13,800/–, and obtained physical possession thereof at the time of execution of the sale deed. Mutation No.4102 dated 05.11.1997 was duly sanctioned in his favour. The name of Tejpal Singh was also entered in the Jamabandi as owner in possession by the revenue authorities on the basis of the said mutation. Since the date of purchase, Tejpal Singh remained in ownership and possession of the suit land. He was residing in Bombay but had constructed two rooms, one kitchen, and one bathroom on the suit property, besides planting small plants and maintaining a kitchen garden in part of it. Whenever he visited Batala, he used to reside in his property. The defendants have no right, title, or interest in the suit land.

4. It is further pleaded that in the year 1994, the defendants tried to take possession of the property illegally and forcibly, but were unsuccessful. Thereafter, defendant Sahib Singh filed a false civil suit for permanent injunction against Tejpal Singh before the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Batala, which was titled ‘Sahib Singh v. Tejpal Singh’, only to harass Tejpal Singh and grab the property. That suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.06.1994. Subsequently, the same defendant again filed another suit for permanent injunction on 18.07.1994 before the Civil Court, Batala, which too was dismissed by the Court of Shri Amarjit Singh Kataria, PCS, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, vide judgment dated 18.01.1997, holding that Sahib Singh was not entitled to the relief of injunction as he was not in possession. The appeal filed by Sahib Singh was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide judgment dated 28.10.1999. Thereafter, Sahib Singh filed Regular Second Appeal No. 3048 of 2000 before this Court by concealing material facts and, though not in possession, managed to obtain an interim order dated 02.09.2003, whereby he was restrained from being dispossessed “except in due course of law.” That appeal is still pending before this Court.

5. It is further submitted that Tejpal Singh himself had earlier filed Civil Suit No. 383 dated 02.07.1994 titled “Tejpal Singh v. Mohan Singh”, for declaration before the Civil Court, Batala, which was decreed in his favour. Subsequently, Sahib Singh filed another Civil Suit