Dismissed

Sahib Singh v. Tejpal Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Oct 2025RSA/3048/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal, the Single Judge dismissed the appellant's suit for permanent injunction. The court held the appellant was a trespasser since he admitted the respondent's ownership under a registered sale deed. Relying on precedent, the court ruled that an illegal occupant cannot seek equitable relief against a lawful owner.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; judgments and decrees of lower courts affirmed; trespasser granted no injunction.

Sahib Singh Vs Tejpal Singh — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

RSA-3048-2000 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

RSA-3048-2000 (O&M) Reserved on:-14.10.2025 Date of Decision : 27.10.2025

Sahib Singh

....Appellant

VERSUS

Tejpal Singh (S i nce deceased) through LRs and Another ....Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶11

Present: M r . Vipin Mahajan, Advocate and M s . Gagan Bir Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

M s . Meena Bansal, Advocate Fo r legal representatives of respon d ent No.1.

¶13

Re s pondent No.5 is stated to have d ied. -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J.

¶14

Th e appellant–plaintiff, Sahib S ingh, has preferred the pre s ent Regular Secon d Appeal against the concurren t findings of fact recorded by b oth the Courts below whereby his suit for per m anent injunction restraining the respondent–def e ndant, Tej Pal Singh, from interfering in his possession or dispossessing him from the plot marked as A B CD, situated in village Faizp u ra, was dismissed.

¶15

Th e suit was instituted on 18.07.1994, dismissed by the learned t rial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.1 9 97, and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff before t he learned First Appellate Cou r t was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.1999.

¶16

Brief Facts

¶17

Br i efly stated, the case of the p l aintiff is that he is in actual and TRIPTI SAINIphysical posses s ion of the suit plot marked as A BCD as per the site plan attac h ed 2025.10.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA-3048-2000 (O&M) - 2 -

¶19

with the plaint. He has raised a boundary wall around it and sown jawar crop and that the defend a nt, who had been residing in B o mbay for the last 20 years, rece n tly visited the villa g e and threatened to dispossess him without due process of law. It is further plea d ed that an earlier suit filed by the plaintiff against the defen d ant before Shri Hu k am Chand, Sub Judge Ist Class, Batala, had been withdrawn on the assurance of t h e defendant that the plaintif f would not be dispossessed. T he plaintiff alleges that the defendant again attempted to interfere with his possess i on, compelling him to file the present suit for perm a nent injunction.

¶20

Th e defendant–Tej Pal Singh, in his written statement, t o ok preliminary o b jections regarding the main t ainability of the suit, impr o per description of t h e property, and lack of cause o f action. On merits, it was pleaded that the plainti f f is an illegal occupant and th a t the suit land was owned by o ne Mohan Singh son of Natha Singh, who h a d sold land measuring 3 ka n als comprised in K h asra No. 12/16/1/1 to the defen d ant vide registered sale deed d a ted 15.05.1974 for c onsideration of ₹13,300/-. It w a s further pleaded that the defen d ant has been in ow n ership and possession of the s u it land since the date of purc h ase and had raised boundary wall in May/June 1 9 94. The plaintiff, according to the defendant, has illegally trespassed into the p roperty taking advantage of his absence.

¶21

Fr o m the pleadings of the parties, t h e following issues were frame d : 1. Whether the plaintiff is en t itled to the injunction prayed f or? O P P

¶22

Relief.

¶23

In support of his case, the plaintiff examined PW1 Satish Chan d er, Draftsman, wh o proved the site plan (Ex. P-1). PW2 Barkat Masih, Drafts m an, TRIPTI SAINIwho deposed t h at the plaintiff had been in po s session of the plot for 9–10 years. 2025.10.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

RSA-3048-2000 (O&M) - 3 -

¶25

PW3 Mohinder Singh, who also deposed that t h e plaintiff was in possession f o r 8 years and had r a ised a boundary wall. Himself as PW4 and admitted in his cr o ssexamination th a t the defendant had purchased t h e suit plot from Mohan Singh v ide registered sale d eed (Ex.D-1), and that he ent e red into an oral agreement to sell with the defend a nt but no date, year, or conside r ation was stated or pleaded.

¶26

O n the other hand, the defendant produced a photocopy of the s ale deed executed i n his favour by Mohan Singh, which the plaintiff admitted in his testimony.

¶27

Findings of the Trial Court

¶28

Th e learned trial Court, after ana l yzing the pleadings and evide n ce, held that the p laintiff himself admitted that the defendant had purchased the property from M ohan Singh, and thus owners h ip of the defendant stands pro v ed. The alleged or a l agreement to sell pleaded by t he plaintiff is vague, without d ate, consideration, o r proof. The plaintiff’s entry in t o possession was unauthorized and without any la w ful right; he had trespassed up o n the property taking advantag e of the defendant’s absence. Relying upon the judg m ent of the Hon’ble Supreme C o urt in Premji Ratansey Shah & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1994 (5) SCC 547 , it was held that a trespasser is not entitled to an injunction against the true ow n er. Accordingly, th e suit was dismissed.

¶29

Findings of the First Appellate Court

¶30

O n appeal, the learned First Appel l ate Court reappraised the pleadings and evidence a n d concurred with the findings o f the trial Court. It was held that the plea of the plaintiff that the defendant h a d admitted his possession w as misconceived. W hen read as a whole, the w r itten statement clearly denied the plaintiff’s possession over the plot. The o w nership of the defendant st a nds TRIPTI SAINIadmitted by the plaintiff himself in his testimon y . The plaintiff, being a 2025.10.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

RSA-3048-2000 (O&M) - 4 -

¶32

trespasser, is not entitled to equitable relief o f injunction. Reliance was a g ain placed upon Premji Ratansey Shah (supra) and Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) CCC 404 (P&H) , to hold that no inju n ction can be granted in favour o f a person in unla w ful possession. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 10. Aggrieved by the concurrent fi n dings of the Courts below, the appellant has p r eferred the present appeal, wh i ch upon notice is contested by the legal representa t ives of respondent No.1.

¶33

Submissions of learned counsel for the parties

¶34

Le a rned counsel for the appellan t /plaintiff contended that both the Courts below e r red in law and on facts in dismi s sing the suit. It was argued that the respondent/def e ndant had admitted the pos s ession of the appellant in the preliminary ob j ections of his written state m ent, and therefore, the suit for injunction oug h t to have been decreed. It was further contended that the alleged sale deed in fa v our of the defendant was not p r oved according to law and that the findings of bot h courts are perverse. Counsel a lso referred to the order passe d by this Court on 0 2 .09.2003 at the time of admissi o n of the present RSA, whereby the appellant was p r otected from dispossession “except in due course of law,” arg u ing that such interi m protection implied recognition of his possession. 12. O n the other hand, learned cou n sel appearing on behalf of l e gal representatives of respondent No.1 supported the judgments of both the co u rts below and contended that the plaintiff, havi n g admitted the ownership of the defendant, can n ot seek injunction against the tr u e owner. The plaintiff entered i nto possession unla w fully, without any valid agree m ent to sell or document of titl e . A trespasser cann o t claim equity in his favour. T h e concurrent findings are base d on proper apprecia t ion of evidence and settled law and call for no interference.

¶35

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

RSA-3048-2000 (O&M)

¶37

- 5 -

¶38

Findings of this Court

¶39

Af t er hearing learned counsel for t he parties and perusing the rec o rd, this Court find s no merit in the appeal. The p l aintiff’s own testimony admits the ownership of t h e defendant. Once the plainti f f admitted that Tejpal Singh h ad purchased the l a nd from Mohan Singh throug h a registered sale deed, the titl e of the defendant s tood established. The plea o f oral agreement to sell is va g ue, unsubstantiated , and devoid of particulars, ther e by lacking evidentiary value. 14. Th e Courts below have correctl y held that the possession of the plaintiff was t r espassory. A person in unl a wful occupation cannot seek an injunction to protect his illegal possession aga i nst the lawful owner. The law l aid down in Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of India (1994) 5 SCC 547 and Om Parkash v. State of Haryana (1998) 3 CCC 404 (P&H) squarely applies to the facts of this cas e .

¶40

Th e interim order dated 02.09. 2 003 passed by this Court o nly restrained dispossession except in due course o f law. Such an order is procedur a l in nature and can n ot confer ownership or tenanc y rights upon the appellant. It o nly prevents forcibl e eviction without following the due legal process. 16. Th e re is no perversity, illegality, o r misreading of evidence by ei t her court below. T he concurrent findings are w e ll reasoned and based on cor r ect appreciation of l aw.

¶41

Conclusion

¶42

In view of the foregoing discus s ion, it is held that the plaint i ff– appellant Sahib Singh is a trespasser in the s u it property. No injunction ca n be granted against the true owner to protect un l awful possession. The concur r ent findings of the trial Court and the First Ap p ellate Court suffer from no l e gal

¶43

infirmity.

¶44

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

- 6 -

¶46

RSA-3048-2000 (O&M)

¶47

Ac c ordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. T he judgments and decrees dated 18.01.1997 and 28.10.1999 passed by the Co u rts below are affir m ed.

¶48

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

¶49

October 27, 20 2 5 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o .

¶50

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sahib Singh v. Tejpal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahib Singh v. Tejpal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Ram Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Birkha Alias Birkh Bhan Vs Darya Singh

(O&M) Rajinder Kumar Vs Des Raj

Naib Raj Vs Ramesh Kumar

State Bank of India etc. Vs M/S Dashmesh Engg.Works etc.

P.S.E.B. Vs Madan Lal