[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagga Singh And Others vs Gurnaib Singh on 29 January, 2026
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. RSA-3966-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 29.01.2026
Jagga Singh & Ors ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Gurnaib Singh ... Respondent(s)
2. RSA-4006-2023 (O&M)
Jagga Singh ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Gurnaib Singh ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate
for the appellants in both the appeals.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose off the two above-captioned appeals
being RSA-3966-2023 and RSA-4006-2023 filed by the defendant-appellants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2023 passed by the First
Appellate Court and the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2019 passed by the
Trial Court.
2. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-
appellants from interfering, dispossessing and demolishing the wall of the
house shown as Mark ABCD in the site plan. It was averred that he is owner
in possession of the house/plot in question. Earlier he was owner in possession
of 19 marlas of land, but later on he gave about 06 marlas of land to the
authenticity of this order/judgment.
defendant-appellant No.1 - Jagga Singh, who was working as seeri for him
for the purpose of his residence. One wall at point CD as shown in the site
plan was also constructed at the spot in the year 2005 to make a division of
said land in possession of the defendant-appellant No.1 and remaining 13
marlas of land remained with the plaintiff-respondent. In the month of
November 2017 the defendant-appellants started disputing the common wall
existing at the spot and were trying to demolish the same. Hence, the present
suit.
3. On notice the defendant-appellants contested the suit on the
ground that the defendant-appellant No.1 was working as seeri with Mohinder
Singh and Bohar Singh in the year 2005. The defendant-appellant No.4 -
Ranjit Kaur - was also doing their household work. Later on, the defendant-
appellant No.1 purchased 18 marlas of the land from Bohar Singh and
Mohinder Singh and entries in this regard were also made in the bahi which
is in possession of the plaintiff-respondent. It was further averred that the
defendant-appellant No.1 constructed his residential house in 06 marlas of
land and the remaining 12 marlas of land was kept vacant and electricity
connection was also installed in his name. However, now the plaintiff-
respondent has forcibly constructed a wall and had separated 12 marlas of
vacant land. Even on 15.11.2017 the plaintiff-respondent tried to take
possession of the residential house of the defendant-appellant No.1 regarding
which an FIR No.50 dated 25.06.2018 was also registered. Alongwith the
written statement, the defendant-appellant No.1 herein also filed a counter-
claim for declaration to the effect that he was owner of 18 marlas of the land
and for mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff-respondent to remove the
wall from the spot and for permanent injunction.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff-respondent and a reply was
also filed to the counter-claim. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ?
OPD
3. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to relief of
declaration as prayed for ? OPCC
4. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to relief of
possession as prayed for ? OPCC
5. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to relief of
mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPCC
6. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPCC
7. Whether the counter claim is not maintainable ?
OPP
8. Whether the counter claim is under valued ? OPP
9. Relief.
5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.2019
decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent restraining the defendant-
appellants from interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent from
his house and from demolishing the wall as fully detailed in the plaint. The
counter-claim filed by the defendant-appellant No.1 was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the same, two appeals being CA-35-2019 and CA-36-2019
were preferred by the defendant-appellants before the First Appellate Court
authenticity of this order/judgment.
challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2019 passed in favour of the
plaintiff-respondent and dismissal of the counter-claim. Vide judgment and
decree dated 14.09.2023 the appeal being CA-35-2019 was dismissed to the
extent that suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed. However, the appeal
being CA-36-2019 was accepted partly allowing the counter-claim restraining
the plaintiff-respondent from interfering in 06 marlas of land, where the
residential house of the defendant-appellant No.1 was constructed. Aggrieved
by the same, two regular second appeals being RSA-3966-2023 and RSA-
4006-2023 have been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend that
the defendant-appellant No.1 had purchased 18 marlas of land from Mohinder
Singh and Bohar Singh and in this regard entries were also made in the bahi.
Learned counsel would further contend that there is no dispute qua 06 marlas
of land where the defendant-appellant No.1 had constructed a house and is
residing alongwith his family. The dispute is only qua the remaining 12 marlas
of land.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants.
8. In the present case, the case as set up by the plaintiff-respondent
was that 06 marlas of land had been given to the defendant-appellant No.1 as
he was working as seeri for the plaintiff-respondent for the purposes of his
residence. It is an admitted fact that the defendant-appellant No.1 had
constructed a house on 06 marlas of land and is residing there with his family.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants
that a total of 18 marlas of land was purchased by the defendant-appellant
No.1 herein from the father of the plaintiff-respondent is sans any evidence.
Both the Courts concurrently found that not an iota of evidence was led by the
authenticity of this order/judgment.
defendant-appellants to prove that the defendant-appellant No.1 had
purchased 18 marlas of land from the father of the plaintiff-respondent. The
only reliance by the defendant-appellants was on some entries in the bahi on
the basis of a writing qua which also he was unable to state as to whether the
writing was witnessed by any person. In any case, ownership of immovable
property the value of which is more than ₹100/- cannot be transferred without
a registered document. In the absence of any registered document having been
pleaded or proved on record, the argument of the learned counsel that the
defendant-appellant No.1 had become owner of 12 marlas of land cannot be
accepted.
10. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned
judgments and decrees. No question of law, much less any substantial
question of law, arises in the present case. The appeals being devoid of any
merit are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed off.
29.01.2026 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
authenticity of this order/judgment.
