IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment reserved on :10.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on 17.04.2026 SUNDER LAL @ SURENDER SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS ... APPELLANT VERSUS SHRI BHAGWAN AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate (through V.C.)

for the appellant.

Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for the respondents.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by unsuccessful appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.09.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Bhiwani, whereby the first appeal preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, was accepted and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for permanent injunction was dismissed.

2. Appellant-plaintiff, in his suit for permanent injunction, claimed that the suit property (Bada), shown by letters ABCD in the site plan (Ex. P-1) attached with the plaint, situated within the ‘Lal Dora’ of village Dudiwala Nand Karan, Tehsil Dadri, District Bhiwani, was originally owned by his grandfather, Harsukh. The same was inherited by his father, Kailash, and upon the death of his father, the property devolved upon the plaintiff, his brother Shiv Kumar and Maan Singh and their mother. It was alleged that the defendants, who had no concern with the suit property, were attempting to dispossess the appellant- plaintiff and other co-sharers therefrom. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction.

3. The defendants contested the suit by denying the plaintiff’s claim in toto. It was asserted that neither the plaintiff nor his ancestors had any concern with the suit property. It was further contended that the suit property, measuring 511 square yards 12 inches had been owned and possessed by the defendants and their ancestors for the last 150 years. On this basis, defendants claimed ownership as well as possession over the suit property and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

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

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property ? OPP

2. Whether any compromise was effected before the village Panchayat regarding the suit property? OPD

3. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit? OPD 4. Whether suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD

5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own acts and conduct to file the suit ? OPD

6. Whether plaintiff has concealed the material facts in the plaint?

OPD

7. Relief.

5. The suit property is stated to be situated within the Lal Dora of village and, admittedly, there is no documentary evidence on record with regard to its title. In order to establish their respective claims of ownership as well as possession, both parties have relied upon oral evidence. On the one hand, the plaintiff, in support of his case, has examined PW-1 (the plaintiff himself), PW- 2 Rup Ram, and PW-3 Shri Pat Ram. On the other hand, the defendants have examined DW-1 (defendant No. 1), DW-4 Shri Mahesh Kumar, and DW-5 Shri Ramotar. The defendants have further placed reliance upon the report of the Local Commissioner as well as the alleged admission made by the plaintiff before the Panchayat.

6. The learned Court of first instance, after appreciating the oral evidence led by both sides, returned the following findings: (i) that the suit property falls within ‘Thola Jee Ram’ of the village; (ii) that the defendants are residing in the village since the time of their grandfather, though the witnesses of the plaintiff deposed that the defendants had settled subsequently, whereas the ancestors of the plaintiff were the original inhabitants of the village; and (iii) that the suit property is surrounded by properties owned by other family members of the plaintiff, whereas defendant Chanderbhan is residing in the fields and his residential house in