Mohan Kaur And Others v. Avtar Singh And Others

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 10.03.2026 Mohan Kaur and others ...Appellants

Versus

Avtar Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:

Mr. J.S. Jaidka, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plain0ffs are before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. The suit filed by the plain0ffs seeking declara0on of ownership and permanent injunc0on in respect of the suit property was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.07.2019, whereas the cross-suit filed by defendant Darshan Singh seeking possession was decreed. The appeals preferred by the plain0ffs were also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.2025.

2.

The case set up by the plain0ffs was that they were exclusive owners in possession of the suit property shown in yellow colour in the site plan and forming part of Khasra No.118 comprised in Khata No.171/184 as entered in the jamabandi for the year 2005-06. It was pleaded that an oral family seAlement had taken place in October 1995, whereby the residen0al accommoda0on of the par0es was divided and each party started residing in its respec0ve por0on. According to the plain0ffs, they and defendant No.1 had relinquished their share in the agricultural property and had constructed their residen0al house over the suit property. It was alleged

[2] that defendant Darshan Singh and his sons later started threatening the plain0ffs to vacate the property and had also obtained their signatures under police pressure on a wri0ng dated 05.04.2011. 3.

The defendants contested the suit by dispu0ng the site plan relied upon by the plain0ffs and asser0ng that the por0on in dispute actually fell to their share in the family par00on. According to them, since they were residing abroad, the plain0ffs were permiAed to use the property merely as licensees to look aCer the same. It was further pleaded that when the plain0ffs started asser0ng ownership rights, the maAer was brought before the Gram Panchayat, which directed the plain0ffs to vacate the property. The defendants claimed that the licence granted to the plain0ffs had already been terminated.

4.

During the pendency of the dispute, two civil suits came to be filed between the par0es regarding the same property. In the suit filed by Mohan Kaur and others, declara0on and injunc0on were sought, whereas in the suit filed by Darshan Singh and others, possession of the property was claimed. Both suits were consolidated and decided together by the trial Court.

5.

Upon apprecia0on of the evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Mohan Kaur and others, and decreed the suit filed by Darshan Singh and others, by direc0ng the plain0ffs to hand over vacant possession of the property. The appeals preferred by Mohan Kaur and others were dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court through a common judgment dated 20.09.2025, affirming the findings of the trial Court.

6.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Courts below have erred in apprecia0ng the evidence on record and have

[3] wrongly relied upon the alleged compromise dated 05.04.2011, which, according to the appellants, was not signed by Mohan Kaur herself. 7.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

8.

From the evidence on record, it emerges that the suit property originally belonged to Dalip Singh and aCer his death, it was inherited by his sons including Darshan Singh. The rela0onship between the par0es is not in dispute. The controversy essen0ally relates to the ownership and possession of the por0on of the property shown in red and yellow colours in the site plan.

9.

The learned First Appellate Court has extensively examined the evidence of the par0es. From the cross-examina0on of Mohan Kaur and the witnesses produced by the plain0ffs, it has been no0ced that the plain0ffs were unable to produce any documentary evidence establishing their ownership over the suit property. Even the alleged family seAlement of the year 1995 was not supported by any wriAen document. The witnesses themselves admiAed that no wriAen document regarding par00on or transfer of ownership had ever been executed. 10.

Significantly, Mohan Kaur admiAed during her crossexamina0on that the red por0on of the property belonged to Darshan Singh. The witnesses examined by the plain0ffs also acknowledged that Darshan Singh had a share in the property inherited from Dalip Singh. These admissions clearly undermine the claim of exclusive ownership raised by the plain0ffs.

11.

On the other hand, the evidence led by the defendants established that Mohan Kaur and her sons were merely permiAed to use the property, when the defendants were residing abroad. Their possession

[4] was thus permissive in nature. It is well seAled that possession of a licensee is permissive and does not confer any ownership rights unless a valid transfer of 0tle is proved.

12.

The Courts below have also taken note of the compromise dated 05.04.2011, wherein Mohan Kaur and her sons agreed to vacate the property. Even though it has been argued that Mohan Kaur herself did not sign the compromise, it is an admiAed posi0on that her sons had signed the same and they were also par0es to the suit. The existence of such compromise further reinforces the conclusion that the plain0ffs were occupying the property without any proprietary right. 13.

The findings recorded by the Courts below clearly indicate that the plain0ffs failed to prove any valid transfer of ownership in their favour. Mere long possession or construc0on over the property cannot by itself confer ownership, par0cularly when the possession is permissive and the 0tle of the true owner remains intact.

14.

It is also a seAled principle of law that the burden of proving ownership lies upon the party asser0ng it. In the present case, the plain0ffs have failed to discharge this burden. In contrast, the defendants have successfully established their en0tlement to possession on the basis of 0tle inherited from Dalip Singh.

15.

Furthermore, the present appeal arises under Sec0on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the jurisdic0on of this Court is confined to examining substan0al ques0ons of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless they are shown to be perverse or based upon misreading of evidence. 16.

In the present case, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are based upon a detailed apprecia0on of the oral and documentary

[5] evidence on record. The conclusions drawn by the Courts below cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality, perversity or misreading of evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any substan0al ques0on of law arising from the impugned judgments. 17.

Consequently, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 18.

Resultantly, finding the present appeal to be devoid of merit, the same is dismissed.

10.03.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No