[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karam Singh & Ors vs Ravinder Singh & Ors on 7 March, 2026
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2087-2018 (O&M)
Reserved on : 25.02.2026
Date of Decision : 07.03.2026
Judgment Uploaded on : 07.03.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the
full judgment is pronounced : Full
Karam Singh & Anr ... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Ravinder Singh & Ors ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Aman Godara, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Trial
Court and the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2017 passed by the First
Appellate Court.
2. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellants herein filed a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction for
restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in the physical
possession of the plaintiff-appellants as owners and from forcibly
dispossessing them from the land measuring 8B-0B as fully described in the
plaint as per jamabandi for the year 2007-08. It was the case set up that earlier
Sh. Dhoom Singh father of the plaintiff-appellants was owner in possession
authenticity of this order/judgment.
of the suit land and after his death the suit land had been inherited by the
plaintiff-appellants being legal heirs and, therefore, now the plaintiff-
appellants are owners in possession of the suit land and have been cultivating
the same since long. It was further averred that in an area measuring
0B-2B out of Khasra No.28//22/2, there is a tubewell of the plaintiff-
appellants for irrigation of their agricultural land and the house of the plaintiff-
appellants has also been constructed there. There is also a personal guga mari
which was constructed by the father of the plaintiff-appellants for the purposes
of worship. It was further the case that the defendant-respondent No.1 is the
Sarpanch of the village and the plaintiff-appellants had opposed him in the
Panchayat election. As a result, he has a grudge against the plaintiff-appellants
and by taking undue advantage of the post of Sarpanch, the defendant-
respondents had started asserting their right, title and interest in the personal
guga mari which exists on the land of the plaintiff-appellants. It was further
averred that the defendant-respondents were threatening to dispossess the
plaintiff-appellants from the suit land.
3. On notice the defendant-respondents appeared and filed a joint
written statement raising various preliminary objections to the effect that the
guga mari is situated in land measuring 0B-2B comprising in Khasra
No.28//22/2 vide jamabandi for the year 2007-08 and all villagers worshipped
guga mari since time immemorial. On merits, it was the stand taken that the
said land has never been used for cultivation purposes and is being used as a
worship place of guga peer in guga mari at the spot since time immemorial.
It was further stated that the tubewell of the plaintiff-appellants is situated in
land measuring 2B-7B bearing Khasra No.28//22/2, which is in cultivating
possession of the plaintiff-appellants, and the remaining land measuring 0B-
authenticity of this order/judgment.
2B is guga mari and the boundary of the same has been constructed by the
defendant-respondents. It was further the case that the religious sentiments
and feelings of the inhabitants of the village were attached with the guga mari
and all the inhabitants of the village are worshiping the guga mari. It was
further averred that in order to maintain peace, all the inhabitants of the village
had paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of the alleged claim of the
plaintiff-appellants over the land under guga mari and the plaintiff-appellant
No.2 entered into an agreement with the inhabitants of the village on
15.09.2011 and agreed that no one from the family of the plaintiff-appellants
were having any right or concern with the said land. It was further the case
that the plaintiff-appellants had filed an application in the Police Station, but
the same was thereafter compromised.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed :
1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in
the possession of plaintiffs over the suit land as prayer
for ? OPP
2) Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not
maintainable ? OPD
3) Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean
hands and have concealed true and material facts from the
court ? OPD
4) Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the
present suit ? OPD
5) Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present
suit by their own act and conduct ? OPD
6) Whether suit is hopelessly time barred ? OPD
7) Relief.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.2015
partly decreed the suit. However, the claim qua land measuring 0B-2B bearing
Khasra No.28//22/2, where the guga mari is situated, was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellants qua
the land measuring 0B-2B where the guga mari is situated, however, the same
was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree
dated 18.11.2017. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that
both the Courts have erred in not granting the relief qua the land measuring
0B-2B. It is urged that the plaintiff-appellants had proved their ownership of
the suit land and the Courts ought to have decreed the suit in toto. It is further
the contention that the compromise (Ex.D1) was never proved on the record
and, hence, the suit qua land measuring 0B-2B where the guga mari is situated
also ought to have been decreed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants.
8. In the present case the suit is simpliciter for permanent
injunction. Both the Courts concurrently found that the land measuring
0B-2B, where the guga mari is situated, was being used for worship by the
inhabitants of the village. The defendant-respondents had relied upon the
compromise (Ex.D1) which was stated to have been signed by none other than
the plaintiff-appellant No.2. The plaintiff-appellant No.2 - Goverdhan Singh
@ Gordhan Singh - chose not to step into the witness box. No handwriting
expert was examined by the plaintiff-appellants in order to prove that the
signatures/thumb-impressions of the plaintiff-appellant No.2 had not been
appended by him on Ex.D1. It has come in the evidence of the defendant-
respondents that the guga mari was constructed over 02 biswa of land and the
authenticity of this order/judgment.
villagers come to guga mari for the purposes of worship and a fair was also
organized every year at the site. During the course of arguments the learned
counsel for the plaintiff-appellants was repeatedly asked to show any evidence
to even remotely point out that the plaintiff-appellants were in exclusive
possession of the land measuring 0B-2B, where the guga mari is situated,
however, he was unable to point out to any such evidence. Since the suit is for
simpliciter permanent injunction, the plaintiff-appellants were required to
show their possession over the said land. Having failed to lead any cogent and
reliable evidence to prove that the possession over land measuring 0B-2B was
exclusively with the plaintiff-appellants, no fault can be found with the
judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts.
9. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,
arises in the present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
07.03.2026 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
authenticity of this order/judgment.
