IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:23.02.2026 Raj Kumar ...Appellant Versus Pritam Chand ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Gulzar Mohammad, Advocate for appellant.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

Appellant-defendant has preferred present appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 23.01.2020 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, Punjab vide which suit for mandatory injunction preferred by respondent-plaintiff seeking direction to appellant- defendant to remove his belongings, vacate the suit property and hand over the same to respondent-plaintiff was decreed as well as judgment and decree dated 31.01.2026 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide which first appeal preferred by appellant-defendant was dismissed.

2. Respondent-plaintiff had filed suit for mandatory injunction, whereby he sought possession of house owned by him, as fully described in the plaint. Respondent-plaintiff had claimed that appellant-defendant, being his son, was allowed to use and occupy suit property after his marriage as licensee. However, subsequently, appellant-defendant started disrespecting the respondent-plaintiff and maltreated respondent-plaintiff and his wife, even abused them using filthy language. Upon such acts of appellant-defendant, respondent- plaintiff had disinherited appellant-defendant and his wife from his property through publication dated 13.12.2011 in newspaper Veer Paratap and Nawan Zamana. Thereafter vide legal notice dated 12.09.2012 sent on 13.09.2012 had terminated the license in favor of appellant-defendant by giving 15 days time from the receipt of notice to vacate the suit property. However, despite legal notice and termination of licence, appellant-defendant had failed to vacate the suit property. Accordingly, respondent-plaintiff had sought possession of suit property by way of suit.

3. Suit was contested by appellant-defendant. Preliminary objections as regards to maintainability were taken. It was asserted that appellant-defendant has also filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent-plaintiff, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, Punjab. It was further asserted that property is owned and possessed by appellant-defendant as same is situated within lal lakeer and respondent-plaintiff has no concern with the suit property. It was denied that suit property was given on license by respondent-plaintiff to appellant- defendant and reliance upon electricity bills, water bills and voter card was placed to show that it is appellant-defendant who is owner in possession of suit property. Receipt of notice, terminating license was also denied by appellant-defendant and accordingly dismissal of suit was prayed for.

4. After appreciating evidence led by both the parties, both the learned Courts below had arrived at the finding that suit property is owned by respondent-plaintiff and appellant-defendant, being son of plaintiff, was inducted as a licensee, licence was duly terminated and therefore both the Courts held respondent-plaintiff entitled to possession.

5. On consideration, I find that the concurrent finding of fact by learned Courts below in present case are based upon appreciation of evidence led by parties. Both the learned Courts have duly taken notice of the fact that DW1 Nisha, wife of appellant-defendant, had duly admitted that the suit property was given to them by respondent-plaintiff after her marriage. This fact that suit property was handed over by respondent- plaintiff after the marriage of appellant-defendant goes to establish that suit property, which is within lal lakeer, was under possession of respondent- plaintiff and appellant-defendant being son of respondent-plaintiff was inducted as a licensee. Even DW2 Baljinder Kumar, in his cross- examination, also admitted that suit property was possessed by respondent- plaintiff who was earlier residing with his wife. But after marr