IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.04.2026 Amar Singh (Deceased) Through his LRs and others ....Appellants Vs.

Natha Singh (Deceased) Through his LRs and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Ms. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

*****

HARSH BUNGER J.

1 Present regular second appeal, has been filed by appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.1993 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, wherein he has reversed the findings returned by learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.1990, in a suit for permanent injunction, filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.

2. Briefly, Sh. Amar Singh along with Smt. Jagjit Kaur and Smt. Jagir Kaur (the original plaintiffs), filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants No.1 to 5 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and respondent/defendant No.6 over plot No.62 measuring 2016 sq. feet, situated within the abadi of village Mauli Baidwan, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar.

2.1. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs was that Sh. Amar Singh is the son of Sh. Hazura Singh (who was claimed to be the original owner of the aforesaid property), whereas Jagjit Kaur and Jagir Kaur were the wives of the other two sons of Sh. Hazura Singh namely Himmat Singh and Jagir Singh, respectively. It was pleaded that the property in question was originally owned by the Mohammadans, however, on their shifting to West Pakistan in year 1947, a house/plot, left by them in village Mauli Baidwan (including the suit property), was auctioned by way of open auction held on 19.12.1960; wherein Sh. Hazura Singh had purchased the said site for Rs.120/-.

2.2 It was further stated that Sh. Hazura Singh had deposited the price of the aforesaid plot at the Kharar Treasury vide challan No.1272 dated 22.12.1960. Accordingly, it was claimed that Sh. Hazura Singh remained in possession of the said plot during his lifetime, and after his demise, plaintiffs and defendant No.6 came in possession of the suit property as owners. It was also averred by the plaintiffs that they constructed a manger in the suit property for tethering their cattle and there was also a neem tree at the site.

2.3 It was alleged by the appellants/plaintiffs that due to party faction in the village, defendants No.1 to 5 were trying to dispossess the plaintiffs and defendant No.6 from the suit property by claiming that the said property was a evacuee property and still belongs to Mohammadans.

2.4 With the aforesaid pleas, the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs.

3. The defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit contested the claim of the plaintiffs, opposing the pleadings made in the suit. It was stated that plaintiffs were neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property, therefore, the suit did not lie, nor they have any locus standi.

3.1 It was further pleaded that the suit property belongs to the Wakf Board and that the defendant No.1 had purchased it from one Mohammadan, namely, Mehli, vide sale deed dated 20.11.1967 and since then, he is in possession of some part of suit property measuring 10 yards × 10 yards, whereas the remaining property was in possession of Wakf Board and is being managed by respondent No.2 as property of Masjid. It was also pleaded that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred as the suit property is evacuee property and only the Rehabilitation Department was competent to auction the same.

3.2 It was also the categoric case of the defendants No.1 and 2 that, original house of the plaintiffs is far away from the suit property and the property in question was useless for them. The defendants No.1 and 2 asserted their possession by claiming that in fact, it is the plaintiffs, who are trying to dispossess the defendants, under the garb of injunction.

4. The plaintiffs filed a replication to the written state