IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (209)

CR-2631-2024 Date of decision: - 28.04.2026 SURJEET SINGH @ SHEETAL SINGH @ SARJEET SINGH ....Petitioner Versus GHAIN KAUR @ AVINDER KAUR AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashim Singla, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, and Mr. Dushyant Singh, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.

Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate, and Mr. Raj Pal, Advocate for respondent No.6.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside/quashing of order dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana, Fatehabad, in CS No.104/2023 instituted on 22.02.2023 titled as “Sujreet Singh @ Sheetal Singh Vs. Ghain Kaur @ Arvinder Kaur etc, vide which the trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-2). Challenge is also to the order dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-18), vide which the appeal against order dated

04.12.2023 filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the agricultural land measuring 32 Kanal 8 marla comprised in khasra number, which has been mentioned in the headnote of the plaint, on the basis of adverse possession and had also challenged the entries in the revenue record as well as the sale deeds executed by defendants No.4 and 5 in favour of defendant No.6 and also the exchange deed between defendants No.4 and 6. It is further submitted that it was the case of the plaintiff that his father, Harbans Singh, was the original owner of the said land measuring 32 kanal 8 marla and since Kharif 2000, the plaintiff had been cultivating the suit land and during the life time of his father, he had never objected to the possession of the plaintiff of the suit land and the same has been in possession of the plaintiff without him having paid any rent in cash or kind.

3. It is argued that the father of the plaintiff, Harbans Singh, had died on 09.01.2003 and even thereafter the plaintiff has continued to be in possession of the suit property and defendants No.1 to 5 had never objected to his possession and had the knowledge of the same and since the period of 12 years has elapsed from the time of his possession thus, the plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour. It is submitted that the orders passed by the trial Court as well as by the 1^st Appellate Court rejecting the application of the petitioner/plaintiff are not in accordance with law and deserve to be set aside. It is pointed out that at the initial stage, the trial Court had granted ad interim order of status quo regarding possession of the suit property till the next date of hearing, which also shows that the trial Court, at the initial stage, was prima facie convinced that the petitioner/plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6

4. Learned counsel for contesting respondents No.4 to 6 have submitted that the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 are brothers and defendants No.1 and 2 are the sisters of the plaintiff as well as of defendants No.3 to 5 and thus, they all are related to each other. It is further submitted that it is not in dispute that Harbans Singh, father of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 was the original owner of the land measuring 32 kanal 8 marla and after his death on 09.01.2003, seven persons including plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 inherited the estate of the said Harbans Singh and thus, all the said persons are co-sharers in the property in question. It is argued that it is a matter of settled