IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :12.11.2025 CHANDER KANT AND ANOTHER ... APPELLANTS VERSUS HARKESH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Gurmail Singh Duhan, Advocate for the appellants.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

CM-14129-C-2025 This is an application for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal, is hereby condoned.

Main Case

1. The plaintiffs, having been unsuccessful before both courts below, are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahabad, District Kurukshetra, whereby the suit of plaintiff for possession along with the consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. The plaintiffs are further aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.07.2025, whereby the first appeal preferred by appellants-plaintiffs was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra.

2. In their suit for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction, the appellants-plaintiffs claimed that the suit land measuring 0 Kanal 12 Marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 12/11, Khatoni No. 14, Rectangle No. 67, Khasra No. 17/2 min, situated in Village Ram Saran Majra, Sub-Tehsil Babain, District Kurukshetra, is owned and possessed by plaintiff No. 3 to the extent of ½ share, while plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are owners in possession of the remaining ½ share in equal proportions. It was asserted that the defendants are neither co- sharers nor have any concern with the land comprised in Khewat No. 12/11, and that the plaintiffs were enjoying peaceful ownership and possession of the suit property. The appellants-plaintiffs further averred that the defendants, being high- handed and influential persons, attempted to interfere in their peaceful possession by digging a bore and tubewell on the suit land. This compelled the appellants- plaintiffs to file Civil Suit No. 70 of 2016 against defendants No. 1 and 2. In that suit, defendants No. 1 and 2 on 02.05.2016 made a joint statement that they would not construct or dig any bore or tubewell as the existing tubewell was already in working condition. On the basis of this statement, the appellants-plaintiffs withdrew the said suit on 05.05.2016. However, according to the appellants- plaintiffs, on 06.05.2016 at about 9:00 a.m., the defendants forcibly dispossessed the appellants-plaintiffs from the suit land. The appellants-plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ possession is illegal and unauthorized, and that the defendants have no right to retain possession. Hence, the present suit for possession and permanent injunction was filed.

3. The contesting defendants, in their joint written statement, raised several preliminary objections regarding the plaintiffs’ locus standi, maintainability of the suit, estoppel, jurisdiction, and mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. They asserted that the appellants-plaintiffs had earlier filed Civil Suit No. 70 of 2016 seeking permanent injunction, in which defendants No. 1 and 2 had filed a detailed written statement, and which was withdrawn by the appellants-plaintiffs after the defendants’ statement regarding non-digging of a bore or tubewell. The defendants further contended that the land is jointly owned by them to the extent of ½ share, and therefore no injunction can be issued against co-owners. They denied dispossessing the plaintiffs and claimed that the underground water pipes placed on the non-cultivable portion of the land are being used for joint purposes and for irrigating their agricultural fields. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit property as prayed for? OPP

2. W