IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.04.2026 Vinod Kumar Chauhan ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Gurdip Singh ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sandeep Dhiman, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts, whereby suit filed by the appellant for possession and permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the present suit for passing a decree of possession of suit land measuring 40’x 5 1/2”, as described in the plaint; and consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from opening door, window, ventilator and raising any kind of construction over the suit property.

3. It was the pleaded case of appellant that one Shri Rulla was owner of land measuring 40' x 11' fully as described in the plaint. Upon his death, the said land had been inherited by his two sons, namely, Naranjan Singh and Joginder Singh in equal shares. Naranjan Singh had gifted his share in favour of his sons through registered Gift Deed dated 16.9.1975. Thereafter, Sh. Joginder Singh who was owner of 1/2 share in the above property, had sold his share in favour of Sh. Mehar Singh @ Mehar Chand, through registered Sale Deed dated 9.9.1983. Thereafter, Nirmal Singh son of Sh. Naranjan Singh had executed Sale Deed dated 10.05.2005 in respect of two rooms, one hall, kitchen and toilet measuring 47’ x 12’ in favour of the plaintiff. The said property was adjoining on the north side with the house of defendant Gurdip Singh. However, Gurdip Singh, despite the fact that he was owner only to the extent of 1/2 share, had got full registration of 11’ x 40’ instead of its half i.e. 40’ x 5 ½. In order to grab the property, defendant Gurdip Singh got his wife Mrs. Sonia appointed as General Power of Attorney on dated 15.10.2005 of Mehar Chand in respect of house No. 207 with the authority to sell the said house. However, the said Attorney was attested only by Notary Public and was not registered one. Thus, Mrs. Sonia did not have power to execute Sale Deed. Subsequently, the said GPA was cancelled by Mehar Chand on 09.11.2005 which was duly conveyed to Mrs. Sonia, wife of Gurdip Singh/defendant. Thereafter, Mehar Chand had also sold his share measuring 40’ x 5’-6” through registered Sale Deed dated 25.11.2005 to the plaintiff. It was pleaded that in view of the above facts, defendant was liable to handover the vacant possession to the plaintiff. Plaintiff had requested defendant no. of times to handover the vacant possession but all in vain. Hence, present suit was filed on 06.01.2006.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2012. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2015. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned District Courts were in error in non-suiting the appellant as firstly, they have not taken into consideration the evidence brought on record by the plaintiff. It is submitted that Joginder Singh son of Ralla Singh sold his land to Mehar Singh vide sale deed dated 9.9.1983 and after the said purchase, said Mehar Singh raised construction beyond his share. A perusal of judgment and decree, Ex. P1 and P2 passed by learned Civil Judge [Senior Division] Chandigarh dated 13.1.1999 in a civil suit titled Naranjan Singh Vs. Mehar Singh, Mehar Singh and Naranjan Singh were held to be owner of land measuring 40'x5' each out of the total land of 40'x11'. Mehar Singh had sold his share of land measuring