Plaintiff Twisted Facts, Approached Court With Unclean Hands – Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal In Co-Sharer's Injunction Suit

“No construction was raised after plaintiff’s purchase; suit is based on misstatements and vague allegations” –  In a significant ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Regular Second Appeal, filed by a co-sharer seeking a permanent injunction against other co-sharers over joint agricultural land. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC, and that the plaintiff failed to prove either obstruction or unlawful construction on joint property. The bench of Justice Alka Sarin ruled that the plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands and had twisted facts to maintain a claim that was unsupported by evidence.

“Construction Was Already There When Plaintiff Bought The Property – Claim Is Misconceived And Mala Fide”

The appellant, Gurmail Singh, filed a suit for permanent injunction over 57 Kanals 12 Marlas of agricultural land in Village Malakpur, District Mansa, claiming that the respondents (his co-sharers) were attempting to construct on the more valuable portion of the land abutting the main road without partition. He argued that such action would cause him irreparable loss and that the construction would change the nature of the joint land, which was still under pending partition proceedings.

The defendants, however, asserted that the land had been divided via family partition, and that they were in exclusive possession of specific khasra numbers purchased through registered sale deeds dating back to 2003, 2006, and 2017. They contended that the construction over the disputed land had already been completed nearly 15 years before the plaintiff’s 2019 purchase.

Both the Trial Court (vide judgment dated 28.04.2023) and the First Appellate Court (vide judgment dated 04.01.2024) dismissed the suit on factual and legal grounds, prompting the plaintiff to approach the High Court in second appeal.

Justice Alka Sarin scrutinised the appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and found that no substantial question of law arose from the concurrent factual findings.

No Evidence of Obstruction—“Plaintiff’s Claim Was Vague and Unsupported”

The plaintiff had alleged obstruction of a passage leading to his house, but no such pleading or evidence was found on record. Justice Sarin observed:

“It was never the case set up by the plaintiff-appellant that any path was being obstructed nor any evidence was led in this regard.” [Para 9]

Further, the Court noted that the construction in question had already existed when the plaintiff purchased the land in 2019, and the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant admitted as much during arguments.

Registered Sale Deeds and Old Construction—“Defendants Had Acquired Title Long Before Plaintiff’s Purchase”

The defendants had purchased the following specific khasra numbers:

• Khasra Nos. 68//16/1 (4-0), 68//16/2 (4-0), and 25/1 (4-0) through registered sale deeds dated 29.12.2003 and 30.01.2006

• Additional 1 Kanal 5 Marlas on 20.04.2017 from Heera Lal

The Court reiterated that: “It has come on record that the defendant-respondents had raised their construction in 2003, whereas the plaintiff-appellant had purchased the suit property in 2019.” [Para 9]

On Clean Hands Doctrine – “Plaintiff Concealed Facts and Twisted Circumstances”

Justice Sarin highlighted a crucial finding from the First Appellate Court:

“The plaintiff by way of this suit has tried to say that defendants are going to raise construction over specific portion of land, whereas in his cross-examination, he stated that the construction was raised much prior to purchase of land by him. So, in these circumstances, it can be said that plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands. He has twisted the facts.” [Para 9]

The Court condemned the attempt to use the judicial forum for what was essentially a manufactured grievance.

On Maintainability Under Section 100 CPC – “No Substantial Question of Law Arises”

The High Court clarified that both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court had recorded categorical findings on the following:

• Title through registered sale deeds

• Long-standing possession and construction

• Lack of evidence of obstruction or recent interference

Justice Sarin stated unequivocally: “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.” [Para 11]

The second appeal was thus dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling in Gurmail Singh v. Gurjit Singh & Others reinforces the principle that co-sharers cannot seek injunction based on vague, belated, or misrepresented claims, particularly where possession is established through registered title and the alleged interference pre-dates the plaintiff’s claim.

This case stands as a reminder that: “Litigants must come to court with clean hands—where the very foundation of a claim is false, the court will not lend its jurisdiction to protect such interests.”

Date of Decision: 28 July 2025