Gurmit Singh vs Gurmej Ram And Others

RSA-3224-2023 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(123)
RSA-3224-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.11.2026
GURMIT SINGH
… Appellant
Versus
GURMEJ RAM AND OTHERS
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for the appellant.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The appellant-defendant No. 1 has preferred the present
Regular Second Appeal, assailing the judgment and decree dated
03.08.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby
the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 28.11.2019 passed by the
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar, were reversed. The appellant seeks
setting aside of the impugned judgment and restoration of the decree
passed by the Trial Court, contending that the impugned decision suffers
from material errors of law and a perverse appreciation of the evidence on
record.
2. Brief facts are that the plaintiff instituted the suit asserting
ownership and possession over the suit property, with his name recorded in
the column of cultivation. He claimed to have sown Chari Bajra crop and
installed a bore and diesel engine for irrigation. Alleging threats of
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

RSA-3224-2023 (O&M) -:2:-
interference by the defendants, he sought permanent injunction on the
grounds of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
3. Upon notice, defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 were proceeded
against ex-parte , whereas defendant No. 3 contested the suit, alleging
suppression of material facts, lack of locus standi and non-maintainability.
He asserted prior compromises, pendency of related proceedings and his
possession since 1966, and sought dismissal of the suit with costs.
4. The plaintiff filed a replication, controverting the defendant’s
assertions and reiterating the pleadings in the plaint. It was clarified that
the three pending suits had no bearing on the suit property and that the
earlier compromises had never been acted upon. Accordingly, the plaintiff
reiterated his prayer for decree of the suit. After a careful and exhaustive
review of the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues for adjudication to
enable a clear, accurate, and comprehensive determination of the
respective claims and defenses, which are as under:-
1. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as
prayed for? (OPP)
2. Whether suit is not maintainable? (OPD)
3. Whether Plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the
present suit? (OPD)
4. Whether Plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by her own act
and conduct? OPD)
5. Whether Plaintiff has concealed material facts from the court?
(OPD)
6. Relief.
5. Both parties were afforded adequate opportunity to adduce
evidence in support of their respective claims and defences. Upon
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

RSA-3224-2023 (O&M) -:3:-
conclusion of the trial and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the
Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court, the plaintiff-appellant preferred a first appeal, which was allowed
by the First Appellate Court, thereby decreeing the suit for permanent
injunction and restraining the defendants from interfering, otherwise than
in due course of law, with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over land
measuring 7 kanals and 15 marlas, comprised in Khasra No. 30//20 min
(7-15), situated in Village Awan Khalsa.
6.1. Aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court, defendant No. 1 has preferred the present RSA.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the First
Appellate Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned findings of the Trial
Court, which had found that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 failed to
establish his possession over the suit property, particularly when partition
proceedings between the parties were pending. It was further argued that
the First Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate compromise dated
26.02.2012, bearing the signatures of the plaintiff, whereby the parties had
agreed to partition the land, as well as the application submitted before the
SDM, Nakodar, bearing the signatures of PW-1 Kamaljit Ahir, wherein
possession of appellant-defendant No.3 was allegedly acknowledged.
Learned counsel submitted that there was no cogent evidence establishing
the plaintiff’s exclusive possession and that the First Appellate Court had
misread and misappreciated the oral and documentary evidence, resulting
in a perverse reversal of the Trial Court’s findings. Accordingly, setting
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

RSA-3224-2023 (O&M) -:4:-
aside of the impugned judgment and restoration of the Trial Court’s decree
were sought.
7.1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at considerable
length and, with his able assistance, having meticulously scrutinised the
pleadings and evidentiary material on record, this Court has bestowed its
anxious consideration upon the submissions advanced and the findings
recorded by the Courts below.
8. A perusal of the findings recorded by the First Appellate
Court, particularly in the light of the demarcation report dated 10.10.2015
(Ex.PW1/4), clearly establishes that the respondent-plaintiff was found to
be in exclusive possession of the suit land. The First Appellate Court has,
therefore, rightly concluded that a co-sharer in exclusive possession of a
specific portion of joint property is entitled to protect such possession
against forcible dispossession, except in due course of law. The
appropriate remedy available to the appellant-defendant, if aggrieved by
the existing arrangement of possession, is to seek partition of the joint land
in accordance with law, rather than resort to forcible interference with the
possession of the respondent-plaintiff.
8.1. The First Appellate Court has further rightly observed that the
Trial Court failed to duly appreciate the evidentiary significance of the
demarcation report (Ex.PW1/4), which unequivocally supported the
respondent-plaintiff's claim of exclusive possession over the suit property.
Significantly, it is neither the case of the appellant-defendant that the
respondent-plaintiff forcibly took possession of the suit land during the
pendency of the proceedings nor has any material been brought on record
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

RSA-3224-2023 (O&M) -:5:-
to demonstrate that the possession reflected in the demarcation report was
subsequently altered. In these circumstances, the respondent-plaintiff,
being a co-sharer in settled and exclusive possession, is legally entitled to
protect such possession against forcible dispossession, subject always to
the rights of the other co-sharers and the outcome of any partition
proceedings. The First Appellate Court has, thus, committed no illegality
or material infirmity in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court.
8.2. Consequently, finding no substantial ground warranting
interference, the present Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, is
hereby dismissed .
9 . In view of the final disposal of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly. No further orders are warranted.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
11.11.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document