IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kishan Chand Vij …. Appellant Versus Satish Kumar Marwaha etc.

…. Respondents Reserved on: 14.11.2025 Pronounced on: 12.02.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 27.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced:

Full Judgment CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR * * * *

Present : Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate;

Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate &

Mr. Akash Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rajesh Garg, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neha Matharoo, Advocate &

Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

* * * *

ROHIT KAPOOR, J.

CM-1967-C-2025 The instant application has been filed under order 41 Rule

27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for placing on record statement of Ashok Kumar, Clerk recorded on 13.08.1998 in Civil Suit No.174 of 23.05.1996, along with the translated version, as Annexure A-1/A and A-1.

For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed and documents Annexures A-1 and A-1/A are taken on record.

Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

1. The present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant (now deceased and represented through legal representatives), against judgment and decree dated 22.11.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-plaintiffs has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, has been set aside.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the trial court, i.e. the appellant shall be referred as ‘defendant’

and the respondents shall be referred as ‘plaintiffs’.

Factual Background

3. Briefly stated, the claim of the plaintiffs is that they are owners of the suit land measuring about 15 marlas, which was part of the land parcel measuring 3 kanal 4 marlas comprised in khasra numbers 4278 (0k.-9m.), 4282/1 (2k.-13m.), and 4285/1 (0k.-2m.)as described in the headnote of the plaint. This land parcel was taken on lease from the late Maharaja of Kapurthala for the purpose of constructing a motor garage, by one Sh. Jagan Nath Aggarwal during the year Samvat 1983 (Gregorian Calendar 1926). Subsequently, the said land is stated to have been transferred in his favour by issuance of a sanad by the Maharaja on

4 Fagun, Samvat 1989, (12^th March 1932).

4. Sh. Jagan Nath Aggarwal started joint business in partnership with Mathura Das and Kanshi Ram, sons of Lala Bishan Dass, upon the said land as well as other property situated in Kapurthala, Hoshiarpur and Raiya. The business was divided amongst the partners, including the immovable properties, by executing a registered dissolution deed on 30 Fagun, 1993 i.e. 12.03.1937. The land/property in question fell to the share of Lala Mathra Dass and Kanshi Ram, who became owners in possession of the same. The family of Lala Mathra Dass and Kanshi Ram continued to do business in partnership amongst themselves, along with their brother Muni Lal and on 25.05.1955 the family property was partitioned by executing a registered partition deed. The property in question fell to the share of Hussan Lal, father of the plaintiffs. It is further claimed that some portion of the property was on rent with one Chaudhary Hans Raj.

5. After the death of Sh. Hussan Lal, the plaintiffs claim to be owners of the property in question, in equal share. There is a recital in the partition deed dated 25.05.1955, wherein Chaudhary Hans Raj is stated to be tenant in some portion of the property. A rent note dated 04.06.1955 is stated to have been executed in favour of the father of defendant, i.e. Chaudhary Hans Raj who is stated to have become tenant in the suit property. The possession of the defendant and his predecessor-in-interest over the suit property was stated to be permissive.

6. Petition No.20 of 1985 was filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for th