[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh Alias Satpal vs Gurdial Chand And Others on 27 January, 2026
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-1621-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 27.01.2026
SATNAM SINGH @ SATPAL .... Appellant
VERSUS
GURDIAL CHAND AND ORS .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Mandeep K. Saajan, Advocate and
Mr. Vikram K. Bishnoi, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2017
passed by the learned Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated
25.03.2022 passed by the learned First Appellate Court.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellant herein filed the present suit for permanent injunction averring
therein that he had been residing in the suit property situated within the Lal
Dora of Village Dariapur for the last 26 years whereas the defendant-
respondents herein have no concern or connection with the same. It was
further averred that the plaintiff-appellant was in possession of the suit
property as owner and that his possession had been continuous, regular,
peaceful and without any interruption. It was further the case that the
defendant-respondents, being headstrong and lawless people, were
RSA-1621-2022 (O&M) -2-
threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff-appellant from the suit
property.
3. The defendant-respondents appeared and contested the suit by
filing a written statement raising various preliminary objections qua
maintainability and that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff-appellant
was not the owner/co-owner in the suit property. On merits it was the stand
taken that the suit property was self-acquired property of defendant No.4,
namely, Ram Dass @ Gurdass Ram who is the father of the plaintiff-appellant.
Defendant No.4-father of the plaintiff-appellant had disinherited the plaintiff-
appellant from the property by issuing a notice in the newspaper.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent
injunction as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and
locus standi to file the suit ? OPD
4. Relief.
5. The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
27.01.2017 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred
by the plaintiff-appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the learned First
Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.03.2022. Hence, the
present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.
RSA-1621-2022 (O&M) -3-
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that
the plaintiff-appellant had been residing in the suit property along with his
family and that the electricity bills etc. were in the name of the father of the
plaintiff-appellant. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that
during the pendency of the suit, the father of the plaintiff-appellant had died
and that after the death of the father of the plaintiff-appellant, the plaintiff-
appellant continued to reside in the suit property.
7. Heard.
8. In the present case the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was a
simplicitor suit for permanent injunction. In a suit for permanent injunction,
the plaintiff-appellant was to establish his possession over the suit property
however what was argued by the plaintiff-appellant before both the Courts
was that since Dass Ram @ Gurdass Ram had died during the pendency of
the suit, as such the plaintiff-appellant had become the owner, which argument
cannot be gone into in the present case as there is no declaration which has
been sought in the present suit. The plaintiff-appellant while appearing as
PW2 had, in his cross-examination, feigned ignorance that his father had
disinherited him from the movable and immovable properties. He further
deposed that the electricity connection was installed in the name of his father.
The plea taken by the plaintiff-appellant was that he had been residing in the
suit property for the last 26 years with his family and that the defendant-
respondents had no concern with the same. However, not an iota of evidence
had been led by the plaintiff-appellant to even remotely suggest that he was
in possession of the suit property. There was sufficient evidence on the record
RSA-1621-2022 (O&M) -4-
to show that defendant No.4 was the owner of the suit property. Sale certificate
in his favour was produced on the record as Ex.D9. Copy of the sale certificate
was also proved on the record by the plaintiff-appellant himself as Ex.P27.
Once the ownership of defendant No.4 was proved and there was no evidence
on the record to show the possession of the plaintiff-appellant, it was
incumbent on the plaintiff-appellant to have filed the suit for declaration
claiming ownership of the suit property on the basis of title. In the absence of
any evidence on the record, no fault can be found with the impugned
judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts concerned.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for
determination in the present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
27.01.2026 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
