IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:25.02.2026 Pronounced on:09.03.2026 Uploaded on:17.03.2026 Bhoop Singh and others ... Appellants Versus Ram Saroop (since deceased) through LRs and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Ankit Grewal, Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate Mr. Akshat Dalal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Hemant Bassi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Gursimran Kaur, Advocate Ms. Saloni Chhabra, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.12.1993 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff for possession of suit property as prayed in the plaint, was decreed as well as the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.08.1995 passed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to by their original status before the learned trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and the defendants were joint owners and co-sharers of agricultural land situated in village Mohammadpur Ahir. The plaintiff moved an application for partition before the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Nuh. The said proceedings culminated in an order dated 17.12.1980, on the basis of which a partition deed was prepared on 05.02.1981 by the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Nuh. According to the plaintiff, the land detailed in paragraph No.3 of the plaint was allotted to him in the said partition proceedings and he thereby became the exclusive owner thereof. It was further pleaded that he was in actual physical possession of the land detailed in paragraph No.4 of the plaint but was dispossessed from the land detailed in paragraph No.5 of the plaint (the suit property). The plaintiff alleged that despite the partition proceedings, the defendants did not deliver possession of the land allotted to him and removed the partition marks. As the possession could not be obtained through the revenue authorities within the prescribed period, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for possession.

4. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections including that the suit was not maintainable, was barred by limitation and suffered from mis-joinder of parties. It was also pleaded that the partition proceedings and the orders dated 17.12.1980 and 05.02.1981 passed by the Assistant Collector were vague, indefinite and non-executable. The defendants further alleged that the plaintiff had concealed material facts from the Court. It was pleaded that Ramesh Kumari, Mani Ram, Hem Ram and Devi Ram, being minors, were not represented properly before the Revenue Court in partition proceedings and the Court guardian did not act in a bona fide manner to protect their interest. The partition proceedings initiated were dismissed by the District Revenue Officer on 27.01.1987 and the appeal/revision filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Commissioner Ambala on 27.01.1988. It was also denied that the land detailed in para No.3 ever came to the share of the plaintiff, thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as six issues including relief and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.1993 holding that the plaintiff was entitled to possession in accordance with the partition proceedings. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned 1^st Appellate Court, which was dismissed, affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

6. Still dissatisfied, the defendan