The Court holds that when verifying ancestral land title claims over multiple generations amid complex historical consolidation and settlement operations, the appointment of a Revenue Expert to prepare excerpts is essential to resolve discrepancies, aiding the court in reaching a just conclusion without it being viewed as improper evidence collection.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

By way of present petition, the petitioner/plaintiff No. 2 has challenged the common order dated 29.05.2025, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No. 178-I/2016, titled, Shiv Dutt & Ors. vs. Om Dutt & Ors., whereby two applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff along with other plaintiffs, who have been arrayed as proforma-respondents, under Order 26 Rule 9, 10A CPC and under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC, have been dismissed.

The petitioner/plaintiff along with the proforma respondents (hereinafter referred as the plaintiffs) has filed a suit seeking decree for declaration to the effect that the parties are coparceners and the property/land in the hands of Sh. Lekh Raj, predecessor-in-interest of parties is an ancestral Joint Hindu family Coparcenary property devolved after the death of common ancestor Sh. Mangru i.e. land measuring 93,732.59 Sq. D.M. as mentioned in the plaint and the plaintiffs have ¼ share, respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 & 2 (for short defendants No. 1 & 2) and proforma defendants No. 3 & 4 have ¼ share, defendant No. 5 has ¼ share, defendant No.6 has ¼ share, in the said Joint Hindu family Coparcenary property, and have rights since their birth in the afore said property.

The entries in the name of Sh. Lekh Raj alone is contrary to the actual and factual position on the spot and are against the rights of the plaintiffs, defendants and performa defendants. The entries in the name of defendant No.1 in respect of land measuring 4577.82 Sq. D.M.as detailed in sub head(K) on the basis of decree passed in the Civil Suit No. 174/95 titled as Om Dutt Vs Lekh Raj, decided on 25.11.1995 and decree sheet prepared on 04.04.1996, are also wrong and incorrect and the decree of the Court is collusive and has been obtained by playing fraud, mis-representing the facts and behind the back of the plaintiffs just to infringe the legal valuable rights of the plaintiffs and performa defendants. The same is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and performa defendants. Hence, mutation No. 193 and subsequent entries in the revenue record based upon the aforesaid decree are null and void-ab-initio and have no effect in the eyes of law.

Defendant No. 2 has no right, title or interest what-so-ever in the suit land by virtue of alleged sale deeds. The entries in respect of land measuring D.M. 6035.04 i.e. Land measuring 5201.85 Sq. D.M. comprised of Khewat No. 46 Min, Khatoni no. 58 Min, Khasra No. 1332, 1333, 1351, 1353, 1354, 1375 & 1377 Kitta 7 as entered in Jamabandi 2010-11 situated in Up-Mohal Ram Nagar Gagret, Land Measuring 35.69 Sq. D.M. as fully detailed in Sub head(L) above and situated in up-mohal Indira Nagar Gagret, Land measuring797.50 Sq D.M. i.e. Land measuring 475.00 Sq. D.M. being ½ share out of total 950.00 Sq. D. M. comprised of Khewat No. 52, Khatoni no. 65, 66, Khasra No. 1975, 2290, 1976, 1977, Kitta 4 detailed In Sub Head (B) Situated in Village Gagret as entered in Jamabandi for the year 2012-13 and Land measuring 322.50 Sq. D. M. being ¼ share out of total 1290.00 Sq. D.M. comprised of Khewat No. 58, Khatoni No. 74, Khasra No. 1973, 1974, 2291 Kitta 3.as fully detailed in sub head (F) situated in village Gegret as entered in Jamabandi 2012-13, on the basis of sale deed No.2474, 2475 and 2476 registered in The Office of Sub registrar Amb on dated 22-08-2015, executed by defendant No. 1, being the General Power Attorney of Sh. Lekh Raj, one wrong, illegal, void, baseless, ineffective, mere paper and conventional entries and against the rights of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants. The aforesaid sale deeds were executed without any legal necessity, and are not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants. The deceased Lekh Raj, predecessor-in-interest of parties, never executed the registered Power of Attorney No. 146 dated 12.06.2012, during his life-time and the alleged Power of