Jagdish Kailey Vs Balbir Kaur — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jagdish Kailey Vs Balbir Kaur — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed in limine, the lower appellate court's decree (mandatory injunction directing removal of the gate) stands, and pending applications, if any, stand disposed off.

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain questions relating to encroachment of the disputed street on the ground that it is owned by the Gram Panchayat, such questions being entertainable only by the Collector under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. +2 more

Court's answer

Even otherwise, jurisdiction of the civil court is barred only when the property is shown, pleaded or proved to be Shamilat Deh; in the present case there is not a single document, pleading or evidence on the record of the courts below to show that the street stands vested in the Gram Panchayat; thus the plea of jurisdiction is devoid of merit.

Ratio / Principle

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, this Court is of the view that no ground for admission of the present Regular Second Appeal is made out.

Key takeaways

The defendant, in his written statement before the trial court, never pleaded that the land in dispute was Gram Panchayat land or that the civil court lacked jurisdiction under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961.ratio¶35
No such issue was framed, no evidence was led in that direction, and even before the lower appellate court no such plea was raised.ratio¶35
On the contrary, the defendant admitted the correctness of site plan Ex.P1, admitted existence of the street, and admitted installing the gate therein.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Mandeep Pannu J, oral) dismisses in limine RSA-2541-2024 (O&M), Jagdish Kailey v. Balbir Kaur (decided 05.12.2025). The District Judge, Jalandhar (CA-286-2023, decree dated 29.07.2024) had set aside the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar's decree dated 06.05.2023 dismissing the plaintiff's suit, and had decreed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction for removal of a gate installed by the defendant in a public street about 5 feet wide at VPO Wadala. The appellant-defendant's plea, raised for the first time in second appeal, that the street being Gram Panchayat land only the Collector could entertain encroachment questions under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, was rejected: no such plea was taken in the written statement, no such issue was framed, no evidence was led, and the plea was not raised below; a litigant cannot introduce an altogether new factual foundation at the second appellate stage. Further, civil court jurisdiction is barred only where property is shown, pleaded or proved to be Shamilat Deh, and nothing on record shows the street stands vested in the Gram Panchayat. The defendant's admissions (site plan Ex.P1 correct, gate installed in the street) with Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 sustain the lower appellate findings; no perversity, illegality or misreading of evidence was shown.

RSA-2541-2024 (O&M)

- 1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

RSA-2541-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.12.2025

Jagdish Kailey

....Appellant

VERSUS

Balbir Kaur

....Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: M r . Gulzar Mohammad, Advocate for the appellant (th r ough hybrid mode)

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J (Oral).

Pr e sent Regular Second Appeal h as been filed by the defend a nt– appellant assai l ing the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Distric t Judge, Jalandhar in CA-286 - 2023, whereby the judgment and decree of the l e arned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar dated 06.05.2 0 23 dismissing the s uit of the plaintiff, has been s e t aside and the suit for perma n ent and mandatory i njunction has been decreed.

Brief facts

Pl a intiff pleaded that she is ow n er in possession of house N o .14 situated in VP O Wadala and that on the northe r n side of her house exists a pu b lic street about 5 f e et wide, used by all villagers si n ce inception. It was alleged that the defendant, owner of the plot shown yellow i n the site plan opposite her ho u se, illegally encroa c hed upon the public street by i nstalling a gate from point A t o B

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.08 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2541-2024 (O&M) - 2-

and by raising c onstruction into the street, ther e by blocking access of the plain t iff. Mandatory inju n ction for removal of the gate w a s also sought. 3. Defendant admitted ownership o f the yellow-coloured plot and admitted that t h e house of the plaintiff is o p posite his house, but denied any encroachment. H e relied upon a compromise da t ed 24.02.2018. 4. Re p lication was filed and issues were framed accordingly. Is s ues framed by the T rial Court are as under:-

Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restrai n ing the defendant from encroaching u p on and raising illegal construc t ion ov e r the suit property which is a p u blic street as prayed for? OPP

Whether the site plan filed b y the plaintiff is incorrect? OPD

Whether the suit is not main t ainable? OPD

Relief.

Findings of the trial Court

Th e Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff faile d to prove encroach m ent and that the compromise relied upon was misunderstoo d . It held that the ph o tograph Ex.P2 rather showed c o mpliance by the defendant.

Findings of the Lower Appellate Court

Th e Lower Appellate Court rever s ed the findings. It relied upon the defendant’s ow n admissions in the written state m ent and in his deposition as D W -1 that the gate s h own in Ex.P2 was installed i n the street, the site plan Ex.P 1 is correct, the str e et ends in front of both houses and nobody can encroach upo n it, and he had un d ertaken earlier not to raise ill e gal construction in the street. T he court held that these admissions along with E x.P1 and Ex.P2 clearly estab l ish illegal encroac h ment by the defendant. The compromise relied upon by the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.08 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2541-2024 (O&M) - 3-

defendant also a cknowledged existence of the gate. Accordingly, the appeal w as allowed and ma n datory injunction was granted d irecting removal of the gate.

Aggrieved by the judgment and d e cree of the learned lower appellate Court, the app e llant-defendant has approache d this Court for setting aside the same.

Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant

Le a rned counsel for the appellant h as argued that the street in dis p ute is owned by the Gram Panchayat, and theref o re, under Section 7 of the Pu n jab Village Comm o n Lands Act, 1961, only the C o llector has jurisdiction to enter t ain questions relati n g to encroachment, and the c i vil court has no jurisdiction. I t is submitted that the learned District Judge fail e d to consider this aspect and the judgment deser v es to be set aside.

Findings of this Court

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for t h e appellant and having perused the record, this Court is of the view that no gr o und for admission of the pre s ent Regular Secon d Appeal is made out. 10. It i s undisputed from the pleadin g s of both parties that the dis p ute relates to a pub l ic street situated between the h o use of the plaintiff and the plot of the defendant. T he defendant, in his written st a tement before the trial court, n e ver pleaded that th e land in dispute was Gram Pa n chayat land or that the civil c o urt lacked jurisdict i on under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. No s u ch issue was fram e d. No evidence was led in th a t direction. Even before the lo w er appellate court, no such plea was raised. On t h e contrary, the defendant admi t ted the correctness of site plan Ex.P1, admitted e x istence of the street, and admi t ted installing the g a te therein.

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.08 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2541-2024 (O&M) - 4-

Th e plea now raised for the first ti m e in RSA constitutes a comple t ely new case, whic h cannot be permitted at this st a ge. A litigant cannot be allowe d to improve his case by introducing an altogether new factual foundation at the sec o nd

appellate stage.

Ev e n otherwise, jurisdiction of the civil court is barred only when the property is sho w n, pleaded, or proved to be Sh a mlat Deh . In the present case, t h ere is not a single d o cument, pleading, or evidence o n the record of the courts belo w to show that the street stands vested in the G r am Panchayat. Thus, the ple a of jurisdiction is d e void of merit. No other argume n t was raised. 13. Th e findings of the lower ap p ellate court are based on c l ear admissions of t he defendant, supported by E x.P1 and Ex.P2, and call for no interference. T h e Trial Court ignored vital ad m issions of the defendant him s elf, whereas the lo w er appellate court rightly appr e ciated the evidence. No perver s ity, illegality, or mi s reading of evidence is shown.

Conclusion

In v iew of the above discussion, th e present Regular Second Appe a l is

dismissed in li m ine.

Pe n ding applications, if any, also s t and disposed off.

December 05, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.08 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document