IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

106 RSA No.2267 of 1992 (O&M)

Date of Decision:11.11.2025 (cid:1) (cid:1)

Jagira (since deceased through LRs) and others ...Appellants(cid:1)

Versus Sh. Gurdev Singh (since deceased through LRs) and others ... Respondents(cid:1)

2. RSA No.218 of 1993 (O&M)

Nasib Singh and others ...Appellants(cid:1)

Versus(cid:1)

Karnail Singh(since deceased through LRs) ... Respondents(cid:1)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Vikram Anand, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate Ms. Mankeen Kaur, Advocate for respondent(s).

***

(cid:1)

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant appeals are being decided by a common order as they involve common question of law and facts. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from RSA-2267-1992.

2. The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1989 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff and the judgment dated 03.08.1992 passed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by him against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, has been dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred in terms of their status before the learned trial Court.

4. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on 11.06.1987, plaintiff- filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Dasuya, seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in his lawful and peaceful cultivating possession as a tenant of land measuring 30 kanals 18 marlas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 2084/1313 min (4K-4M), 1705/1313 min (1K-0M), 1906/1313 min (10K-5M), 1919/1313 min (7K-15), Khasra Nos. 1703/1313 (6-8), and 1706/1313 min (1-6M), situated in village Dhadhiala, Tehsil Dasuya.

5. Upon issuance of summons, defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement wherein they raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of suit, concealment of facts, cause of action, locus standi of plaintiff to file the present suit. On merits, possession of the plaintiff was disputed and it was stated that he got made fictitious and wrong entries in the revenue record with the connivance of revenue officials and that he along with his accomplices threatened to dispossess defendants forcibly from the land in dispute. For this, the plaintiff and his accomplices were also challaned under Section 107, 151 Cr.P.C. by police officials at Police Station, Tanda and thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as six issues including relief. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the appeal preferred by the defendants was also dismissed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court. Hence, the regular second appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants contends that both the learned Courts below have exceeded their jurisdiction by granting the relief of possession to the plaintiff whereas the suit was simplicitor for permanent injunction. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he was in possession of the land in dispute and thus, the suit seeking relief of permanent injunction ought to have been dismissed. The learned trial Court relied on the documents which were not even exhibited while rendering a finding that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendants in an illegal manner. It is also contended that both the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that a relief which is not even pleaded cannot be granted. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Messers. Trojan and Co. Vs. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar AIR 1953 (SC) 235 to conte