Dismissed¶31

Matadeen and Ors. v. Singh Ram Deceased through His Lrs and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Jan 2026RSA/3669/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; RSA-3669-2019 (O&M); decided 28.01.2026; Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin (Oral); Matadeen and Ors v. Singh Ram (deceased) through his LRs and Ors; suit for permanent injunction; possession since consolidation/Chakbandi; consolidation decision dated 16.06.1963; concurrent findings of Trial Court (30.09.2015) and First Appellate Court (10.12.2018) upheld; no substantial question of law; exhibits Ex.P25, Ex.D1, Ex.D5; Contempt Petition No.RT-42 of 2009; land possession dispute (Kanal/Marla); appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

A perusal of the judgments and decrees of both courts revealed via Ex.P25 that Singh Ram (defendant-respondent No.1) and others were owners of the suit property and Chander etc. were cultivating the land. ¶26

Matadeen and Ors. Vs Singh Ram Deceased through His Lrs and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned proceedings of consolidation dated 16.06.1963 are void against the rights of the plaintiff (OPP). +5 more

¶18

Court's answer

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The change in ownership was made according to the decision dated 16.06.1963, and possession and ownership had changed according to Ex.D1.

¶30

Key takeaways

Defendants' possession stood admitted: Ex.D5 (certified copy of judgment in Contempt Petition No.RT-42 of 2009) recorded Sh. Bhagwan (AW1) admitting possession of Raju @ Raj Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Chandgi Ram for the last 8 to 10 years, and AW3 Rakesh admitting the existence of the defendants' Chhapar for the last 10 to 12 years.ratio¶30
In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, and with counsel unable to point to any on the record, suggesting that the plaintiff-appellants were in possession of the suit property, no fault could be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular second appeal (RSA-3669-2019 O&M) by plaintiff-appellants Matadeen and Ors against concurrent dismissal of their simpliciter suit for permanent injunction by the Trial Court (30.09.2015) and the First Appellate Court (10.12.2018). The record (Ex.P25; Ex.D1) showed Singh Ram (defendant-respondent No.1) and others as owners, with ownership and possession having changed per the consolidation decision dated 16.06.1963; Ex.D5 (certified copy of judgment in Contempt Petition No.RT-42 of 2009) evidenced defendants' possession for 8 to 12 years via admissions of AW1 Bhagwan and AW3 Rakesh. With no cogent evidence of the plaintiffs' possession and no substantial question of law arising, the appeal was dismissed by Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin (Oral) on 28.01.2026.

¶1

115

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RSA-3669-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.01.2026

¶4

Matadeen and Ors ... Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Singh Ram (deceased) through his LRs and Ors ... Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶8

Present : Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

¶9

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶10

Present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court.

¶11

Briefly the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffappellants herein filed a simpliciter suit for injunction claiming that they are owners in possession of the suit property as fully described in the plaint. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-appellants that they are in possession of the suit property since the time of consolidation ( Chakbandi ). It was further the case set up that the defendant-respondents have no right, title or interest in the suit property and that they are trying to obtain possession of the suit property. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents who set up the claim that the suit property came to their share vide decision dated 16.06.1963 and that they are in possession of 01 Kanal 17 Marla since the time of

¶12

JITENDER KUMAR 2026.01.29 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

RSA-3669-2019

-2-

consolidation.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were

¶17

framed :

¶18

Whether the impugned proceedings of consolidation dated 16.06.1963 are void against the rights of plaintiff ? OPP

¶19

Whether plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the suit land ? OPP

¶20

Whether suit is maintainable ? OPP

¶21

Whether civil court jurisdiction is barred ? OPD

¶22

Relief, cost, special cost.

¶23

The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2015 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred, which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2018. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that the plaintiff-appellants have been in possession of the suit property and that the decision dated 16.06.1963 was never acted upon nor possession was delivered to the defendant-respondents and that the defendant-respondents are now trying to dispossess the plaintiff-appellants only on the basis of decision dated 16.06.1963.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

In the present case the suit is simpliciter for permanent injunction. A perusal of the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts reveals that Ex.P25 reveals that Singh Ram (defendant-respondent No.1) and others were owners of the suit property and Chander etc. were cultivating the land. The change in ownership has been made according to decision dated

¶27

JITENDER KUMAR 2026.01.29 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

RSA-3669-2019

¶29

-3-

¶30

16.06.1963 and possession and ownership had changed according to Ex.D1. Further Ex.D5, which is a certified copy of the judgment in contempt petition No.RT-42 of 2009, reveals that Sh. Bhagwan (AW1) admitted the possession of Raju @ Raj Kumar, Sunil Kumar both sons of Chandgi Ram son of Singh Ram and Chandgi Ram son of Singh Ram and that they were in possession of the suit property for the last 8 to 10 years. AW3 Rakesh also admitted the existence of Chhapar of the defendant-respondents since the last 10 to 12 years. There is no cogent evidence forthcoming nor learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has been able to point out to any evidence on the record to even remotely suggest that the plaintiff-appellants were in possession of the suit property. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence to even remotely suggest that the plaintiff-appellants were in possession of the suit property, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts.

¶31

In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present appeal. 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.

¶32

28.01.2026 ( ALKA SARIN ) jk JUDGE

¶33

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶34

JITENDER KUMAR 2026.01.29 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Matadeen and Ors. v. Singh Ram Deceased through His Lrs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matadeen and Ors. v. Singh Ram Deceased through His Lrs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Vs Raj Singh

Balwinder Singh S/O Vir Singh and Another Vs Balbir Singh S/O Kartar Singh

Surjit Singh and Others Vs Rajbir Singh (Since Deceased) through This Lrs and Others

Munni and Ors. Vs Veer Singh and Ors.

Alahudin Chaudhary Vs Canara Bank

Rajpal and Ors. Vs Mahabir and Others