IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :-25.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement:- 09.04.2026 Uploaded on:- 10.04.2026 Munshi (Deceased) Through his LRs and Others … Appellants Versus Nika Singh and Others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. P.S. Chahal, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the appellants.

Respondent Nos. 1, 2(ii), (iv) are proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.08.2025.

Service of respondent No.5 dispensed with vide order dated 26.08.2025.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The appellants–plaintiffs have instituted the present Regular Second Appeal (here-in-after referred to as “RSA”) assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents–defendants was allowed, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial Court were set aside, and, as a consequence thereof, the suit instituted by the appellants–

plaintiffs came to be dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant–plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the suit property, fully detailed and described in the headnote of the plaint, by way of adverse possession. A further relief was sought for correction of revenue entries, contending that the entries in the revenue record are incorrect, along with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his alleged peaceful possession.

2.1 It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff had been in continuous possession of the suit land for more than forty years and that such possession was adverse, hostile, open, notorious, and to the knowledge of the true owner as well as the general public. It was further asserted that the entries in Column No. 9 of the Jamabandis depicting the plaintiff as a tenant are erroneous and liable to be ignored, as he was not a tenant under any person.

2.2 It was further averred that the defendants claimed to have purchased the suit property from one Phulo Ram, who, according to the plaintiff, had not been heard of for the last forty years. On this premise, the sale deed in favour of the defendants was alleged to be null and void, without consideration, and not validly executed by Phulo Ram.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein the claim of the plaintiff regarding acquisition of ownership by adverse possession was categorically denied. It was pleaded that the defendants are the lawful owners in possession of the suit property, having purchased the same from the original owner, Phulo Ram, through a validly executed and duly registered sale deed.

4. Upon a comprehensive and meticulous examination of the pleadings on record, as well as the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, the learned trial Court deemed it appropriate to crystallize the points in controversy. Accordingly, for the purposes of a structured, systematic, and legally coherent adjudication, the Court proceeded to frame the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in adverse possession of the suit land and has become its owner ? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether the defendants have purchased the land in dispute from original owner and are in possession as owner ? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is bad on account of non-joinder of parties ? OPD. 5. Whether the plaint has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

6. Relief.

5. Upon affording the parties full opportunity to lead evidence and after hearing learned counsel, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. It recorded a finding that the plaintiff was reflected to be in possession of the suit land in the Jamabandis Ex.P2 to Ex.P4, while Phulo Ram was shown as the recorded owner therein. The learned trial Court further relied upon the testimonies of t