IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :06.04.2026 BHANWAR SINGH ... APPELLANT VERSUS RAGHUBIR SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant–defendant No. 2 challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.03.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the first appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 09.04.1994 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Palwal, was allowed and the suit filed by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff was decreed.

2. The respondent No. 1-plaintiff, in his suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, claimed that he is in possession of the land duly described in the plaint as a tenant under the mortgagee–defendants. It was asserted that initially an eviction petition titled as ‘Khilli etc. Vs. Raghbir’, under Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 was filed by the mortgagees, which was decided on 05.10.1972 by the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Palwal and was dismissed with liberty to the parties to approach the Civil Court.

3. Thereafter, Civil Suit Nos. 312 and 315 of 1974 titled as Sehira vs. Raghbir and Khilli vs. Raghbir were filed, which were decided vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.1975 on the basis of a compromise. As per the said compromise and the decree of the Civil Court, the defendants (who were plaintiffs in those suits) relinquished all their rights and title in favour of the present respondent No. 1-plaintiff, who thereby acquired all rights vested in the defendants and stepped into their shoes. Subsequently, the defendants again filed ejectment petition/suit No. 34 of 1986–87 titled Khilli Vs. Rahghbir before the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, which was decided on 21.09.1987. It is the case of the respondent No. 1-plaintiff that the said decree/order of ejectment was obtained by the defendants by playing fraud and by way of misrepresentation. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1-plaintiff sought a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1987 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade is a result of fraud and fabrication and is not binding upon his rights. Along with the relief of declaration, the respondent No. 1-plaintiff also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants, including the present appellant, by raising various preliminary objections regarding maintainability. It was asserted that the compromise decree dated 19.12.1975 was never acted upon and, therefore, could not be relied upon. It was further pleaded that the ejectment order dated 21.09.1987 is legal and binding upon the respondent No. 1-plaintiff.

Dismissal of suit was prayer for.

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

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as alleged in para 1 of the plaint? OPP.

2. Whether the defendants have relinquished their all rights vide civil suit No. 312/1974 decided on 19.12.75? OPP.

3. Whether the defendants have obtained eviction order in application No. 34 of 1986 on 21.9.1987 from the court of A.C. Ist Grade in case titled as Khilli Etc. vs. Raghbir Singh on the basis of fraud as alleged, If so to what effect? OPP.

4. Whether the impugned eviction order No. 34 dated 21.9.87 is liable to be set aside on the ground mentioned in the plaint, if so to what effect? OPP.

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from bringing the present suit? OP