Dilbag Rai Bhalla Vs Parminder Kaur and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dilbag Rai Bhalla Vs Parminder Kaur and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the regular second appeal was dismissed and the concurrent findings/partial decree of the Courts below stand affirmed (permanent injunction qua first floor preserved; mandatory injunction and permanent injunction qua ground and second floors remain declined). Pending applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Trial Court Issue No.1: whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendants from dispossessing or interfering with his peaceful possession of the disputed property. +2 more

Court's answer

Both Courts below concurrently found the appellant/plaintiff to be tenant in possession of the first floor; that finding was not challenged by the respondent/defendants, hence the permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing him from the first floor was rightly granted and stands affirmed.

Ratio / Principle

On possession of the ground and second floors, the appellant/plaintiff miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof; it was for him, who alleged possession as tenant of the entire house, to establish by cogent evidence that the ground and second floors were also in his possession; no rent note, receipt or credible evidence was produced.

Key takeaways

Reliance on documents such as electricity bills, water bills and telephone bills is misplaced, as these do not specify which portion of the property they relate to; such documents cannot by themselves prove possession of the ground floor and second floor.ratio¶41
DW1's cross-examination admission that he had no document regarding the suit property does not advance the appellant/plaintiff's case; the onus was on the appellant/plaintiff to prove his possession, not on the respondent/defendant to disprove it.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, RSA-2425-2013 (O&M), Mandeep Pannu, J., pronounced 22.08.2025 (reserved 20.08.2025). Plaintiff-appellant Dilbag Rai Bhalla challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 01.08.2009 (trial Court) and 09.01.2013 (lower Appellate Court) arising from his suit for permanent injunction against dispossession from house No. EG–1052, Mohalla Gobind Garh, Jalandhar, and mandatory injunction for vacant possession of its ground floor, claiming tenancy of the entire house since 1995 at an initial monthly rent of ₹800/-. The Courts below had confined relief to the first floor, of which he was admittedly tenant in possession — a finding unchallenged by the defendants, which stands affirmed. On the real question — possession of the ground and second floors — the Court held the plaintiff miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof: no rent note, receipt or cogent evidence was produced; reliance on electricity, water and telephone bills is misplaced as they do not specify the portion concerned; DW1's admission of holding no documents regarding the property does not advance his case, the onus lying on the plaintiff to prove possession, not on the defendants to disprove it; and a criminal complaint under Sections 379, 447 IPC or proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC do not establish possession. The concurrent findings rest on proper appreciation of evidence, free of perversity or illegality. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; pending applications disposed of.

RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) - 1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) Reserved on: 20.08.2025 Pronounced on: 22.08.2025

Dilbag Rai Bha l la

.....Appellant

VERSUS

Parminder Kau r and Another

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: M r . Amit Dhawan, Advocate for th e appellant. M r . Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the r espondents.

MANDEEP PANNU, J

Th e present regular second a ppeal has been filed by the appellant/plaint i ff challenging the concurren t findings of Courts below v ide judgments and decrees dated 01.08.2009 and 09.01.2013, whereby his suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was par t ly decreed by the trial Court a nd appeal filed by h im was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Brief Facts

Th e appellant/plaintiff filed a suit f or permanent injunction restrai n ing the respondent s /defendants from dispossessin g him from property bearing N o. EG–1052, Moh a lla Gobind Garh, Jalandhar, e x cept in due course of law, and a lso sought mandat o ry injunction directing the re s pondents/defendants to hand o ver vacant possessi o n of the ground floor of the sui t property.

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) - 2-

It w as pleaded that appellant/pl a intiff was inducted as tenant by respondent/def e ndant No.1 in the year 1995 at a monthly rent of ₹800/-l a ter increased with mutual consent. Appellant/ p laintiff alleged that he was in possession of t h e entire property and was regu l arly paying rent. He resided in the house with his w ife and minor children, had el e ctricity connection in the nam e of Gurbachan Kau r and water connection in the n a me of Atma Singh, and was pa y ing the consumptio n charges. He also claimed to ha v e a telephone connection and b a nk account at the s a me address.

It w as further pleaded that on 02. 1 1.2005 at about 2 p.m., during the pendency of th e suit, respondents/defendants al o ng with others forcibly entered the property, broke open the locks of the ground f l oor and committed theft of cer t ain articles, despite a stay order in favour of the ap p ellant/plaintiff.

Th e respondents/defendants cont e sted the suit and denied that the appellant/plaint i ff was ever tenant in respect o f the ground or second floor. It w as asserted that o n ly the first floor had been let o ut to the appellant/plaintiff in J uly 1998, while t h e ground and second floor remained in possession of the respondent/def e ndants as owners. They contended that the appellant/plaintiff h ad deliberately fil e d a wrong site plan. They also denied the alleged forc i ble dispossession f r om the ground floor on 02.11.2 0 05.

Findings of the Trial Court:

O n the pleadings, following issues were framed:-

Whether the appellant/pl a intiff is entitled to perma n ent inj u nction restraining the respon d ent/defendants from disposses s ing or interfering into the peaceful p o ssession of the appellant/plai n tiff ov e r the disputed property as pray e d for? OPP

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) - 3-

1. Whether the appellant/pla i ntiff is entitled for manda t ory inj u nction directing the respondent / defendants to hand over the va c ant po s session of the ground floor of t h e suit property as prayed for? OPP 3) Whether the suit is maintain a ble in the present form? OPP (as amended on 01.08.09)

Whether the appellant/plai n tiff has locus standi to file the pr e sent suit? OPP (As amended on 01.08.09)

1. Whether the appellant/plain t iff has not come to the Court w ith clean hands and has suppressed t h e material facts, if so, its eff e ct? O P D

1. Relief.

Th e trial Court, after appreciating e vidence, decided Issues No.2 a n d 5 together and h eld that the appellant/plainti f f failed to establish tenancy or possession over the ground floor and second floor, and therefore was not entitle d to mandatory inju n ction or permanent injunction i n respect of those portions. 8. However, with respect to the first floor, the trial Court found that the appellant/plaint i ff was in possession as a tenan t . Consequently, the suit was p a rtly decreed restrai n ing the respondent/defendants f rom dispossessing or interferin g in appellant/plaint i ff’s peaceful possession of the first floor except in due cours e of law. Relief of m andatory injunction for grou n d floor and permanent injunc t ion regarding grou n d and second floors was de c lined. Judgment and decree w ere passed on 01.0 8 .2009.

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) - 4-

Findings of the First Appellate Court:

Th e appellant/plaintiff preferred a n appeal which was dismissed on 09.01.2013. Th e lower Appellate Court affir m ed the findings of the trial Court, holding that th e appellant/plaintiff was admit t edly tenant in respect of the f irst floor, but failed to prove tenancy or possession over the ground and second flo o rs. It was further o bserved that the documents s u ch as electricity bills, water b i lls, telephone bills, etc., produced by the appellan t/ plaintiff, did not establish that the same pertained specifically to the ground floor o r second floor. Filing of a crim i nal complaint or p roceedings under Order 39 R ule 2A CPC did not estab l ish possession.

Submissions of the Appellant

Le a rned counsel for the appella n t argued that both Courts be l ow failed to app r eciate that the respondents/ d efendants did not produce a ny documentary p r oof of their possession over t h e ground floor. It was emphasized that DW1, at t orney of the respondents/de f endants, admitted in his cr o ssexamination th a t he was not in possession o f any document regarding the suit property, whic h itself showed that appellant/ p laintiff was in possession of the entire property. It was further argued that forcib l e dispossession of the ground f l oor by respondents/ d efendants was evident from th e disconnection of electricity su p ply and initiation of criminal proceedings. Hence, the entire suit ought to have been decreed.

Submissions of the Respondent:

Le a rned counsel for the resp o ndents/defendants supported the judgments of t h e Courts below and submitted t h at appellant/plaintiff was indu c ted TRIPTI SAINIonly as tenant o f the first floor. No evidence h a s been adduced to show that ei t her 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) - 5-

the ground or second floor was ever let out to him. Appellant/plaintiff, under the garb of the pre s ent suit, was seeking possessio n of the entire house despite b e ing tenant of only one portion. The findings of t h e Courts below, being concur r ent findings of fact, require no interference.

Findings

I h a ve considered the submissions a nd perused the record. 13. U n disputedly, both the Courts bel o w have concurrently found that the appellant/plaint i ff is tenant in possession of t h e first floor of the suit prop e rty. These findings h ave not been challenged by th e respondent/defendants. Hence, the relief of per m anent injunction restraining the respondent/defendants f r om dispossessing t h e appellant/plaintiff from the f irst floor has rightly been gra n ted and stands affir m ed.

Th e real question for consideratio n is whether the appellant/plai n tiff was also in p o ssession of the ground and second floors. On this aspect, the appellant/plaint i ff has miserably failed to disch a rge the burden of proof. It was for the appellant/p l aintiff, who alleged possessio n as tenant of the entire house , to establish by c o gent evidence that ground an d second floors were also in his possession. No r ent note, receipt, or credible ev i dence has been produced. Reli a nce on documents s u ch as electricity bills, water bil l s, and telephone bills is mispla c ed, as these do not s pecify which portion of the pr o perty they relate to. The trial C o urt has rightly obs e rved that such documents can n ot by themselves prove posses s ion of ground floor and second floor.

Th e contention that DW1 admitte d in cross-examination that he h ad no document regarding the suit property does n ot advance the appellant/plaintiff’s TRIPTI SAINIcase. The onus was on the appellant/plaintiff t o prove his possession, not on the 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2425-2013 (O&M) - 6-

respondent/def e ndant to disprove it. Similarly, f iling of a criminal complaint u n der Sections 379, 4 47 IPC or proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC does not establish that t h e appellant/plaintiff was in pos s ession of ground floor and sec o nd floor at any poi n t of time.

Th u s, the concurrent finding s of the Courts below t hat appellant/plaint i ff was in possession only of the first floor, and that he n e ver remained in po s session in respect of the grou n d and second floors, are base d on appreciation of e vidence and do not suffer from perversity or illegality.

Conclusion:

In v iew of the above, the judgme n ts and decrees of the Courts be l ow dated 01.08.20 0 9 and 09.01.2013 are well rea s oned and call for no interfere n ce. The suit of the appellant/plaintiff has been ri g htly decreed partly, restraining the respondent/def e ndants from dispossessing hi m from the first floor, and rig h tly dismissed qua t h e relief of mandatory injunctio n and permanent injunction qua the

ground and sec o nd floors.

Th e present Regular Second App e al being devoid of merit is her e by

dismissed.

No order as to costs

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

August 22, 202 5 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document