IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 21.04.2026 Arjan Singh …Appellant Versus Gurmail Singh and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: R.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

Defendant No.1 (Arjan Singh) is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2022 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2019 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, vide which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff (Gurmail Singh) filed a suit for possession of the area measuring 5 x 49-1/2’ and 36-1/2’ x 49-1/2’ comprising in khasra No.67 (0-9) khewat No.268/245, Khatauni No.288 as per jamabandi for the year 2006-07 (fully described in the plaint), situated in village Nangal Kalan, Hadbast No.350, Tehsil Railkot, District Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’). A decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit property, was also sought.

3.1 It was claimed that the plaintiff and his uncle Ajaib Singh, were co-owners of land measuring 9 marla comprising in the aforesaid Khasra No.67. The plaintiff had moved an application dated 29.07.2013 to the Revenue Authorities for demarcation of the said land, whereupon one Kuldeep Singh Kanungo had conducted the demarcation on 07.08.2013 in the presence of the respectables of the village. The said Kanungo in his report dated 07.08.2013 (Ex.P-4) found that the suit property was in illegal possession of the defendants, inasmuch as defendant No.2 had laid a passage thereupon, whereas defendant No.2 had raised a boundary wall on the suit property. It was further claimed that earlier defendant No.2-Gram Panchayat had tried to lay an underground water pipe in the property of the plaintiff through a proposed course, but in the civil suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat had undertaken that no such pipeline would be laid and accordingly, the said civil suit was withdrawn.

3.2 It was asserted by the plaintiff that the defendants having been found in illegal possession of the suit property, were bound to hand over its possession to the plaintiff.

4. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement, inter- alia, asserting therein that the suit was not maintainable and that the plaintiff had no locus-standi and cause of action to file the suit. The authenticity of the demarcation report allegedly conducted on 07.08.2013 was denied and rather, it was asserted that the demarcation of the suit property was not possible as the same was located in a densely populated and constructed area. It was further pleaded that the house of defendant No.1 had been in existence for more than 100 years and neither the plaintiff nor his forefathers had ever raised any objection to that effect. The plea of adverse possession was, therefore, raised. Remaining averments of the plaint were denied.

4.1 Defendant No.2 failed to put in appearance despite service and accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.12.2013 passed by the trial Court.

5. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession by way of declaration as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form?OPD

4. Whether plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands and suppressed material facts from the court?OPD

5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

6. Whether suit of the plaintiff is within limitation?OPP

7. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the present suit?OPD

8. Whethe