##PAGE1##

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(238)

RSA-4187-2001(O&M)

Reserved on : 19.02.2026

Pronounced on : 21.04.2026

Uploaded on : 22.04.2026

Parkash and Others

……Appellants

Versus

Dial Singh and Others

……Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

****

Present: Mr. Aarush Kashyap, Advocate, and

Ms. Ramandeep, Advocate,

for the appellants.

Respondents were proceeded against ex parte

vide order dated 23.04.2007.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The appellants-Parkash Singh and Others have challenged the

judgment and decree dated 27.08.2001 passed by the learned District Judge,

Kapurthala, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-plaintiffs have

been accepted and set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.04.1997,

passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala.

1.1 For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in

terms of their status before the trial court.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Dial Singh was the

owner of the suit land to the extent of ½ share, whereas Chanan Singh was

the owner of the remaining ½ share. Chanan Singh alienated his ½ share in

-1-

SHUBHAM

2026.04.22 15:16

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document/order

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)

favour of respondent No.2–Iqbal Singh and respondent No.3–Jaswinder

Singh vide registered sale deeds dated 05.03.1979 and 05.07.1979,

respectively. Consequently, respondents No.2 and 3 became owners in

possession of the said property. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that a

few months prior to the institution of the present proceedings, the

defendants illegally took possession of the land in dispute. Thereafter,

defendant No.1 instituted a suit for injunction against Bachan Singh and his

sons, wherein the defendants made a statement before the Court on

07.05.1995 to the effect that they would not dispossess the plaintiffs from

the suit land forcibly. The said suit came to be dismissed by the learned Sub

Judge 1st Class, Kapurthala. However, despite the same, after having taken

possession of the suit land, the defendants started raising construction

thereupon. Subsequently, the respondents-Dial Singh and Others instituted

a suit for recovery of possession on 14.03.1995.

3. Upon notice, the defendants-Parkash and Others appeared and

filed their written statement contesting the suit, raising various preliminary

objections and they also took the plea that they have become owners of the

suit land by way of adverse possession. The plaintiff filed a replication

denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating the averments

made in the plaint.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following

issues were framed:

-2-

SHUBHAM

2026.04.22 15:16

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document/order

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)

1. Whether the plaintiffs have appointed Bachan Singh as their

attorney vide power of attorney dated 10.03.1995 and the suit has

been filed by a competent person on behalf of the plaintiffs?OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for recovery of

possession of the disputed land and also for permanent injunction as

prayed for? OPP

3. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action?OPD

4. Whether defendants have become owners in possession of the

suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD

5. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

6. Relief.

5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the

evidence on record, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Kapurthala, dismissed the suit of the respondents/pla