IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:11.09.2025 (cid:1)

Chandgi Ram(since diseased) through LRs and others ... Appellants(cid:1)

Versus (cid:1)

Udmi(since diseased) through LRs ...Respondent(cid:1)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Parmod Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate Mr. Gurdeep Bidhan, Advocate (cid:1)

for the respondent.(cid:1)

***

(cid:1)

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.01.1990 passed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.1988 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed, has been allowed.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by the respondent-plaintiff and appellants-defendants. The appellants-defendants were adamant to raise construction on the said land forcibly and illegally without obtaining any prior partition order. For this purpose, the appellants-defendants had collected bricks at the site and were intending to dig foundations. The respondent-plaintiff repeatedly requested the appellants-

defendants not to proceed with such construction, but they refused to accede.

Hence, leading to institution of the present suit.

3. Upon notice of the suit, appellants–defendants appeared and filed written statement taking objection that the plaintiff has no concern with the suit land and that the jamabandi entries in his favour are incorrect. It was averred that the parties are descendants of Makhna and Sadhu, sons of Alam Khan, who were owners in equal shares, and that the share of Lakhi devolved upon his legal heirs, who are in possession. It was further pleaded that Jawana, Ramzan and Udmi, sons of Kimu, mortgaged their 1/8th share to Gopala and Jati, sons of Matu, for Rs.225/- and thereafter Ramzan and Jawana migrated to Pakistan in 1952-53. The mortgage was redeemed by the Custodian Department vide order dated 07.06.1956, and mutation was sanctioned on 30.07.1956. The land was then allotted to Anokh Singh on 12.05.1960, and later purchased by Gopala and Jati on 19.12.1960 for Rs.1350/-, with corresponding entries made in the revenue record. It was thus contended that since the plaintiff and his brothers had already mortgaged and parted with their share, he has no subsisting right in the land. By way of additional objections, it is contended that the plaintiff had earlier sought partition before the revenue authorities, but his application, appeal and revision were dismissed, and therefore the present suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. All other averments of the plaint were specifically denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as five issues including relief. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff whereas the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court. Hence, the appellants–defendants filed the present regular second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, inter alia, contends that the learned 1^st Appellate Court erred in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court without appreciating the facts, evidence and prior proceedings. It is submitted that the suit land was allotted to Anokh Singh by the Custodian Department and was purchased by the appellants-defendants through registered sale deed Ex.D/9, thereby establishing their ownership, while the respondent- plaintiff is neither owner nor co-sharer. It is further submitted that the appellants- defendants’ application to produce the Custodian’s allotment letter, a crucial public document, was wron