Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 83373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Kumar – Respondent
RSA No.5025 of 2017 (O&M)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ankit Swarup, Siddhanth Arora
For the Respondents: Sudhir Makkar

A suit for mandatory injunction seeking recovery of property based on title should not be dismissed on technical procedural grounds; instead, courts should treat the suit as one for possession and direct the plaintiff to pay the requisite ad valorem court fee to achieve substantial justice.

Headnote:(A) Court Fees Act, 1870 - Suit for possession - Mandatory injunction - Technical vs substantial justice - A suit for mandatory injunction seeking possession based on title should not be dismissed on technical grounds if the relief claimed is substantively for possession; the court may instead direct the plaintiff to pay the requisite ad valorem court fee - Law of procedure is a handmaiden of justice and should not defeat the ends of justice. (Paras 6, 7)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Substitution of view - Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach rather than a hyper-technical one to do complete justice between parties; a decree for possession can be passed in favour of an owner against unauthorized occupants even if the suit was originally framed for mandatory injunction. (Paras 6, 7)

(C) Indemnity and property rights - Mere pendency of a claim by the defendant with the government does not preclude an owner from obtaining possession, provided the owner has duly complied with the underlying conditions of ownership title. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
The appellant-plaintiff, having acquired ownership of the suit property through an auction under a Supreme Court order, filed a suit for mandatory injunction to recover possession of a portion of the property occupied by the respondents, labeling them as licensees. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the license was not proven and the plaintiff had failed to satisfy indemnity conditions to the State. The appellant challenged these concurrent findings in the present second appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the procedural label of "mandatory injunction" should not defeat a claim for possession where the plaintiff is proven to be the owner. The court ordered that the suit be decreed for possession, conditional upon the appellant's payment of the requisite ad valorem court fee within two months.

Issues: Whether a suit for mandatory injunction should be dismissed for not being a suit for possession based on title, and whether the respondent's pending claims with the government limit the owner's right to possession.

Ratio Decidendi: When a plaint, read as a whole, reveals the real nature of the relief is possession, the court must address the substance over form, allowing the suit to proceed upon correction of court fees rather than dismissing it.

Result: Appeal allowed; suit for possession decreed subject to payment of court fee.

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

The legal representatives of appellant-plaintiff (Raj Kumar) are in appeal. First Appeal filed by the plaintiff-Raj Kumar (since deceased) was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 04.01.2013 & 11.07.2017 passed by both the Courts below, whereby a suit for mandatory injunction filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff / Raj Kumar (since deceased) seeking directions against the respondents-defendants to handover vacant possession of portion of House No. F-3/13, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Hisar, shown as WXYZD in the site plan and also for grant of perpetual injunction from restraining the defendants from making any repair or construction over it, was dismissed.

FACTS

Briefly stating, the plaintiff-Raj Kumar (since deceased) filed the above-mentioned suit with the averments that the suit property was an evacuee property, allotted to plaintiff as against his verified claim. Later, a dispute arose with respect to the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property which came to be finally decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1999, vide decision dated 06.04.2004; followed by another order dated 14.07.2006; in terms of which the plaintiff initially deposited Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter, another sum of Rs. 75,000/- with State of Haryana and thus, became owner in possession of the suit property measuring 548.33 square yards. It was further pleaded that the property was located in Hisar, whereas the plaintiff was employed at some distance and so as to look after his parents, the predecessor-in-interest of defendant, namely, Amir Chand, who was known to the family, was requested to live in a portion of the suit property against no charge and thus, became the licensee, having no title therein. It was also stated that the license had since been revoked and despite having been repeatedly called upon to deliver the possession, the defendants continued to retain the same without any right, title, or interest. It was also pleaded that the suit property had also become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Hence, the suit.

In response, a joint written statement was filed by the defendants-respondents, wherein it was stated that the suit property was an evacuee property, possessed by six persons besides the plaintiff; one of those being Durga Parshad handed over his possession to the predecessor of defendants-Amir Chand. It was further pleaded that the suit property was later put to auction by the State Government on 14.09.1987, wherein the plaintiff also participated and a dispute arose qua the ownership and possession of the suit property, which was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its decisions dated 06.04.2004 & 14.07.2006 wherein the plaintiff promised to indemnify the State Government against any claim or rights of persons in possession of any part of the suit property. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff never disclosed in the previous litigation with the State Government that the defendant(s)-Amir Chand etc. were in possession of the suit property as licensee. On merits, it was specifically denied that the plaintiff permitted Amir Chand to be in possession of a part of the suit property as licensee. It was also denied that house in question was in dilapidated condition. Hence, it was prayed that the suit was not maintainable and thus be dismissed.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is land owner/landlord of house property No. F-3/13, Mohalla Qasaban, Gobindgarh Bazar, Hisar? OPP

2. Whether the license of the defendants and their predecessor has since been revoked and cancelled and now they have no authority to live and occupy the h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 83373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHHarkesh Manuja, JRaj Kumar – AppellantVersusRakesh Kumar – RespondentRSA No.5025 of 2017 (O&M)

A suit for mandatory injunction seeking recovery of property based on title should not be dismissed on technical procedural grounds; instead, courts should treat the suit as one for possession and direct the plaintiff to pay the requisite ad valorem court fee to achieve substantial justice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Kumar – Respondent
RSA No.5025 of 2017 (O&M)