101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RESERVED ON:- 27.03.2026 DATE OF DECISION:- 01.04.2026 UPLOADED ON:- 02.04.2026 JARNAIL SINGH ......APPELLANT Vs.

AVTAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER .........RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Mandeep Singh Bedi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate, for the respondent.

*****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

PRAYER

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 06.04.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’), whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, (for short ‘the trial Court’) decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the appellant-plaintiff was set aside.

1.1 For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial Court.

FACTS

2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction on 25.01.1995, asserting that he had purchased the suit land measuring 5 ‘Kanals’ 19 ‘Marlas’ vide sale deed dated 30.05.1994 from Janak Singh and was in possession thereof as owner. It was further pleaded that mutation on the basis of the said sale deed had also been sanctioned in his favour and that the defendants, having no right, title or interest, were threatening to dispossess him forcibly.

2.1 The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement raising a preliminary objection that an earlier suit filed by Smt. Sita Devi, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, was already pending with regard to the same property. On merits, it was specifically pleaded that the land in question is joint and unpartitioned and that the defendants are in possession thereof, whereas the plaintiff is not in possession.

2.2 As per the material on record, it also emerges that the revenue entries (‘Jamabandi’ and ‘Khasra’ ‘Girdawari’) reflect the possession of Janak Singh on behalf of Smt. Sita Devi, thereby indicating the joint nature of the property and absence of exclusive possession. It further transpires that the correction in ‘Khasra’ ‘Girdawari’ relied upon by the plaintiff pertains to a period subsequent to the filing of the suit.

2.3 On the basis of the pleadings, four issues were framed, including ‘Relief.’ and evidence was led by both the parties. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff; however, the learned First Appellate Court reversed the said findings and dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit property on the date of institution of the suit. Accordingly, aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed before this Court.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT–PLAINTIFF

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned First Appellate Court has erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court.

3.1 It is argued that the plaintiff purchased the land through a valid sale deed dated 30.05.1994 and the mutation was sanctioned in his favour, thereby establishing his title and possession.

3.2 It is further contended that the ‘Jamabandi’ and ‘Khasra’ ‘Girdawari’ entries (Ex. P-1 & P-2) support the possession of the plaintiff and his vendor, and that the vendor was in cultivating possession prior to the sale.

3.3 It is argued that once the parties are co-sharers, possession of one is possession of all, and therefore the entry showing possession “on behalf of Smt. Sita Devi” is illegal and has been wrongly relied upon by the First Appellate Court.

3.4 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the ‘Khasra’ ‘Girdawari’ was subse