Gurdev Kaur And Ors. vs Gurbachan Chand

-1-
202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-6-1999 (O&M)
Reserved on : 01.09.2026
Pronounced on : 13.11.2026
GURDEV KAUR AND ANR.
...Appellants
Versus
GURBACHAN CHAND (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Ishan Chopra, Advocate for
Mr. K. S. Dadwal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Advocate
for the respondents.
PARMOD GOYAL, J.
Present regular second appeal has been preferred by
unsuccessful appellants-plaintiffs being aggrieved by judgment and decree
dated 30.04.1996 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Garshankar whereby their suit for permanent injunction was
dismissed and by judgment and decree dated 18.08.1998 passed by learned
District Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby first appeal preferred by appellants-
plaintiffs was also dismissed. The suit for permanent injunction as well as
first appeal preferred by appellants-plaintiffs were dismissed by recording
concurrent findings of facts by learned Courts below.
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-6-1999 -2-
2. In their suit for permanent injunction, appellants-plaintiffs had
claimed that suit property marked as ABCD and EFGH as shown in red
color in the site plan was earlier owned and possessed by Jamal son of
Partapa, who died leaving behind widow Kartari, sons-Rikhi, Gurbachan
Chand and Jagjit Singh. After death of Jamal, the property was inherited by
his widow and three sons. Appellants-plaintiffs claimed themselves to be
widow and daughter of Rikhi Ram one of the sons of Jamal who was the
original owner of the suit property along with Kartari who happened to be
mother of Rikhi Ram. It was the case of appellants-plaintiffs that after death
of Rikhi Ram, appellants-plaintiffs and Kartari came in possession of suit
property as co-sharers. That Kartari had also died a year prior to filing of
suit. Kartari was succeeded by her sons i.e. respondents-defendants as well
as family of pre-deceased son-Rikhi Ram i.e. appellants-plaintiffs. That
appellants-plaintiffs and respondents-defendants became co-owners in joint
possession of property. It was the case of appellants-plaintiffs that no co-
sharer can raise construction without concurrence of other co-sharers and
appellants-plaintiffs cannot be excluded from joint possession. That since
respondents-defendants are doing so, suit for permanent injunction was
preferred.
3. Respondents-defendants had contested the suit and claimed that
appellants-plaintiffs are not in possession of any part of the suit property.
They claimed that they are sole owners in possession of suit property. It was
claimed that their father’s name was Jumma Ram and not Jamal. They also
claimed that suit property is not joint rather same is owned by respondents-
defendants exclusively. They also admitted that Jumma Ram was owner in
possession of suit property and had died 25 years ago and Rikhi Ram had
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-6-1999 -3-
died 15/16 years ago. That Rikhi Ram and Kartari had partitioned the suit
property. Site shown with letters ABCD in site plan of the respondents-
defendants was given to Rikhi Ram and Kartari lived with respondents-
defendants till her death. It was claimed that suit property had become that
of respondents-defendants, having fallen to their share. It was said that
appellants-plaintiffs had no right over the suit property and therefore,
construction raised by respondent-defendant No.1 was valid. Accordingly,
dismissal of suit for permanent injunction was sought. Respondents-
defendants had also filed counter-claim seeking partition of property and
grant of area shown as ABCD to respondents-defendants in partition.
4. In written statement to the counter-claim, appellants-plaintiffs
had claimed that the site plan produced by respondents-defendants is wrong.
It was asserted that the property mentioned as ABCD was owned and
possessed by Faqir Chand, which was bounded as North-street, South-Dass
Ram, East-Diwan Chand, Jit Ram and West-Mohinder Singh. It was claimed
that said property was sold by Faqir Chand to appellant-plaintiff No.1 on
20.12.1985 by handing over the possession to appellant-plaintiff No.1. It
was claimed that since 20.12.1985, appellant-plaintiff No.1 is owner in
possession of site ABCDEF shown in site plan of appellant-plaintiff No.1
and respondents-defendants had no right over the same. Appellants-plaintiffs
had also denied alleged family partition stated by respondents-defendants
and resisted the counter-claim.
5. In re-joinder submitted on behalf of respondents-defendants,
they had also denied that the property marked ABCD shown in site plan of
respondents-defendants was owned by Faqir Chand and claimed that the
alleged sale setup by appellants-plaintiffs is false, bogus and fabricated.
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-6-1999 -4-
They had admitted that appellants-plaintiffs were in possession of property
marked as ABCD in the site plan of respondents-defendants, however,
claimed that same was given to Rikhi Ram, husband of appellant-plaintiff
No.1 in family settlement/partition. Other facts were denied.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:-
1. Whether the suit property is joint of the plaintiffs and
defendants? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are having separate
possession?OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed
for? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of counter-claim
prayed for? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit?
OPD.
6. Whether the plaintiff are estopped from filing this suit by their
act and conduct? OPD.
7. .
Whether the suit is not within time? OPD
7A.
Whether Faqir Chand is owner in possession of the property
marked as ABCDEF in the site plan of the plaintiffs? OPP.
7B. Whether the plaintiffs purchased the property from Faqir Chand
vide sale deed dated 20.12.1985? If so, what effect? OPD.
7. While deciding issue Nos.1 to 4, learned Court of First Instance
had held that suit property stood partitioned during the lifetime of Jumma
Ram and both appellants-plaintiffs and respondents-defendants were having
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-6-1999 -5-
separate possession of their respective portions. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 to
4 were decided against appellants-plaintiffs. Issue Nos.5, 6 and 7 were
decided in favour of respondents-defendants whereas issue Nos.7(A) and
7(B) were decided against the appellants-plaintiffs. Accordingly, suit for
permanent injunction was dismissed.
8. Learned First Appellate Court had duly accepted the findings so
recorded by learned Court of First Instance and had dismissed the first
appeal preferred by appellants-plaintiffs.
9. Dispute in the present case is simple. Suit property is being
claimed by appellants-plaintiffs to be joint with the respondents-defendants
and therefore, appellants-plaintiffs had sought injunction against
respondents-defendants seeking to restrain them from raising construction,
resulting in ouster of appellants-plaintiffs from the joint property.
10. On the other hand, respondents-defendants have claimed that
partition had already taken place between the parties when the husband of
appellant-plaintiff No.1 and father of appellant-plaintiff No.2 i.e. Rikhi Ram
was alive and property shown as ABCD in the site plan relied upon by
respondents-defendants attached with their written statement had fallen to
the share of appellants-plaintiffs and appellants-plaintiffs are in exclusive
possession of said property.
11. Appellants-plaintiffs however, had denied partition as well as
fact that property marked as ABCD shown in site plan relied upon by
respondents-defendants had fallen to their share rather they claimed that
same was purchased by them from Faqir Chand vide sale deed dated
20.12.1985. Therefore, the main issue in present case would be whether the
property marked as ABCD in site plan, which respondents-defendants have
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-6-1999 -6-
claimed to have fallen to the share of appellants-plaintiffs in the
partition/family settlement was duly received by appellants-plaintiffs qua
their share or whether it was purchased by appellants-plaintiffs from Faqir
Chand, as was claimed by appellants-plaintiffs.
12. Furthermore, perusal of pleadings, evidence led by the parties
as well as conclusion drawn by learned Court of First Instance goes to show
that there was serious dispute regarding site plan Ex.D-1 relied upon by
respondents-defendants and site plan Ex.P-3 relied upon by appellants-
plaintiffs, regarding the suit property. Learned Court of First Instance had
accepted the site plan Ex.P-3 to be correct one on the basis of appreciation of
evidence.
13. Learned Courts below had rightly taken admission of
Gurbachan Chand (DW-1) that towards north-west there was a bend abutting
street which has not been shown in the site plan Ex.D-1. This admission on
the part of respondents-defendants was taken by learned Courts below to
conclude site plan Ex.D-1 to be a faulty one. On perusal of evidence, I do
not find any error in the conclusion so drawn by learned Court of First
Instance that it is site plan Ex.P-3, which is correct site plan as site plan
Ex.D-1 does not depict the properties correctly..
14. The main issue upon which fate of present appeal hinges is
whether area shown as ABCDEF in site plan Ex.P-3 was purchased by
appellants-plaintiffs from Faqir Chand or said property had fallen to the
share of appellants-plaintiffs in the partition and was not owned by Faqir
Chand.
15. Learned Court of First Instance after appreciating oral evidence
as well as documentary evidence especially sale deed Ex.P-4 had concluded
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-6-1999 -7-
that site shown in Ex.P-3 marked as ABCDEF was never owned by Faqir
Chand. It had also disbelieved sale deed dated 20.12.1985 (Ex.P-2) in the
name of Rikhi Ram, as Rikhi Ram had died prior to the date of sale deed and
moreover, sale deed was ignored as it was not a registered document.
16. On re-appreciation of evidence led before the learned Courts
below, I find that no exception to the finding of facts recorded by both the
learned Courts below can be made. In fact, vendor of property Faqir Chand
had claimed that suit property was sold to him by Rikhi Ram for Rs.99/- and
thereafter, he had sold the same to appellant-plaintiff No.1-Gurdev Kaur in
the year 1985. He also claimed that the suit property was received by him in
partition with his real brother Jumma as Jamal, the predecessor-in-interest of
appellants-plaintiffs and respondents-defendants.
17. Learned Courts below had not accepted the evidence of Faqir
Chand as once, he had sold the suit property to Rikhi Ram during his
lifetime, there was no need to execute sale deed, subsequently, appellant-
plaintiff No.1-Gurdev Kaur as he had no rights left after selling the same to
Rikhi Ram. Otherwise also, appellant-plaintiff No.1-Gurdev Kaur being wife
of Rikhi Ram would have succeeded the same along with appellant-plaintiff
No.2. The unregistered sale deed and evidence of Faqir Chand therefore,
clearly are an attempt to claim property which according to respondents-
defendants had fallen to the share of Rikhi Ram in the family
settlement/partition. No evidence is available to conclude that property
shown in site plan Ex.P-3 marked as ABCDEF was ever owned by Faqir
Chand and he had sold it to appellants-plaintiffs. The case setup by
appellants-plaintiffs is not established and therefore, both the Courts have
rightly concluded that it is appellants-plaintiffs who had to fail as the
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-6-1999 -8-
defense taken by respondents-defendants is probable and suit property stood
partitioned.
18. The conclusion drawn by learned Courts below is based upon
correct appreciation of evidence led by parties and therefore, no interference
is warranted. No legal question of law arises in present appeal. Appeal is
without any merit. Hence, dismissed.
19. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
13.11.2026 JUDGE
Ravinder
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.13 15:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document