114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 MAHENDER KUMAR @ MAHENDER GOAD ...Appellant Vs.

GANESHI LAL ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

CM-209-C-2023 This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 13 days in re-filing the present appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, duly supported by an affidavit and in the interest of justice, delay of 13 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

CM is disposed of.

Main case This regular second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2022 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. By the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 31.01.2017 and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant, being aggrieved by the affirmation of the trial Court’s decision, has approached this Court seeking redressal in the form of setting aside the impugned judgment and decree.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent/defendant from interfering with the appellant’s peaceful possession of the suit property, which is fully described in the headnote of the plaint. The appellant also sought a mandatory injunction directing the demolition of any construction raised by the defendant on the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

3. The case, as stated in the plaint, is that Gharsi @ Ghanshyam, son of Jawala Sahai, was in possession of the suit property as gair marusi since the time of consolidation of holdings. Gharsi passed away on 10.05.1973 and was succeeded by his three sons—Ramji Lal, Narain, and the present appellant, Mahender Singh. After the death of Ramji Lal, his son Mahesh Kumar succeeded him. Mahender Singh, Narain Singh, and Mahesh Kumar are stated to be in possession of the suit property in equal shares as gair marusi. The present suit was filed solely by Mahender Singh. The suit was contested by the defendant through a written statement and counter-claim, wherein it was contended that the suit property was originally donated to Jawala Sahai, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties. After the death of Jawala Sahai, his two sons—Gharsi and Mool Chand—became owners of half shares each. Upon the death of Mool Chand, his son Ganeshi succeeded to his ½ share, while Gharsi was succeeded by the plaintiff and others to the remaining ½ share. It was further denied that Gharsi alone was in possession of the entire property, asserting that Mool Chand’s name had been omitted erroneously by the revenue authorities during consolidation. The defendant also contended that there had been an oral family partition between the plaintiff and the defendant, whereby 11 marlas of land towards the east were recognized as being in the possession of the defendant. In April 2012, when the defendant was constructing a boundary wall on his portion, the plaintiff attempted to intervene. A compromise dated 28.04.2012 was effected, after which the boundary wall was completed, and the defendant continued in possession of the eastern portion of the suit land, equivalent to his ½ share. After a full trial, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed, and the defendant’s counter-claim was decreed. The appellant thereafter filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of both the suit and the appeal, the present second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that both the Courts below have correctly interpreted the material evidence on record and rightly concluded that, prior to consolidation, the predecessors-in-interest of