IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 KISHAN CHAND (DECEASED) THROGH HIS LR AND ANR.

......Appellants Vs VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate or the appellants.

Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2016 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Karnal (for short the ‘the Appellate Court’), whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Karnal was set aside and consequently the suit for grant of permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 was partly decreed.

[2]. Briefly stating, while claiming themselves in actual physical possession of the agricultural land measuring 34 Kanals comprised in Khewat No.574, Khatoni No.718, Rect. No.77, Killa No.2(8-0), 3(8-0), 4(8-13), 5(5-11), 8(3-16) vide jamabandi for the year 2003-2004, situated in village Kharazpur, Tehsil and District Karnal, respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer for restraining the appellants/defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land. It was averred that the suit land was recorded as Shamlat Deh Majkoor in the revenue record with the father of respondent No.1 and 2/plaintiffs being in exclusive possession of the same being gair marusi with the entry in Column No.9 as “Billa Lagan Bawaja Nautor” and thus, the appellants/defendants, who happened to be their collaterals were required to be restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs.

[3]. Upon notice, the appellants/defendants appeared and contested the suit while stating that the land in question was originally in possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the parties namely Shobha Ram being gair marusi; who had four sons, Ram Chand, Kishan Chand, Bhawani Dass and Ram Lal. As per records, the appellants/defendants, happened to be the successors of Kishan Chand son of Shobha Ram whereas respondent No.1 and 2/plaintiffs were the heirs of Ram Chand son of Shobha Ram. It was pleaded that after the death of Shobha Ram, possession of the suit land was inherited by his four sons in equal shares including predecessor-in-interest of the appellants as well as the defendants and the parties to the suit were in possession of their exclusive share to the extent of 1/4^th (8 Kanal 10 Marla only) whereas the revenue entries regarding possession of entire land in the name of Ram Chand were wrongly recorded. It was, thus pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed.

[4]. In terms of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court.

“i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD iii) Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus-standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present suit? OPD iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-

joinder of necessary parties? OPD v) Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the true and material facts from the Court? OPD vi) Relief.”

[5]. Vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Karnal, the suit filed at the instance of respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs was dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the First Appeal came to be filed which was partly allowed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2016 and consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was partly decreed qua 25 Kanal 9 Marla of land; for the remaining 8 Kanal 11 Marlas of land the suit w