IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

RSA-2576-2022 (O&M)

Reserved on: 06.05.2025 Pronounced on: 08.05.2025 RATNA DEVI @ RATNI AND OTHERS . . . . Appellants Vs.

KARAN SINGH AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Argued by: - Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Defendants No.1 to 3 of the case are before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for declaration regarding property in dispute filed by plaintiffs Karan Singh and others (contesting respondents herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 16.09.2016 and the appeal filed by the defendants No.1 to 3 (appellants herein) was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 25.02.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has been heard at considerable length. Paper-book has been perused.

3. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

4.1 As the record reveals, parties are closely related to each other, inasmuch as one Sobha was the common ancestor of the parties, who had four sons namely Laxman, Sheo Karan, Molar and Lala Ram. As per plaintiffs, Molar was married with Smt. Sarvan and from that wedlock, two sons namely, Ram Sarup and Amar Chand; and two daughters namely, Patori Devi and Chando were born. Molar died about 80 years back and his property VIVEK PAHWA was inherited by his two sons namely Ram Sarup and Amar Chand. On the death of Molar, his widow Smt. Sarvan performed Karewa marriage with Lala Ram i.e., real brother of Molar and out of this wedlock, one son namely Gugan was born. In 1954, Lala Ram expired and his 1/3 share in the land measuring 103 Bighas 19 biswas was inherited by his widow Smt. Sarvan and son Gugan in equal share i.e., 1/6^th share each. This way, Sarvan became owner in possession of the suit land measuring 103 bigha 19 biswas to the extent of 1/6^th share. Sarvan expired in the year 1983 and her mutation of inheritance bearing No.442 was sanctioned on 30.08.1990 in favour of her three sons namely Ram Sarup, Amar Chand and Gugan in equal shares i.e., 1/18^th share each. Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the successors-in-interest of Amar Chand; whereas plaintiffs No.5 to 11 are the successors-in-interest of Ram Sarup. Contesting defendants No.1 to 8 are the successor in interest of Gugan son of Lala Ram, whereas profroma defendants No.9 to 23 are the legal heirs of Patori Devi and Chando.

4.2 As per the case pleaded by the plaintiffs, their predecessors Ram Sarup and Amar Chand are the owners of the suit land to the extent of 1/18^th share each as rightly sanctioned vide mutation No.442 on 30.08.1990, but the settlement officer reviewed this mutation vide an order dated 05.12.2013 and set aside the same. After setting aside the said mutation No.442 dated 30.08.1990 (Ex.P7) by way of the order dated 05.12.2013, the said settlement officer sanctioned mutation No.844/851 (Ex.D1) in favour of Gugan and then mutation No.845/852 (Ex.D2) of the same date in favour of the contesting defendants No.1 to 8 regarding the share of said Gugan.

4.3 Plaintiffs challenged the aforesaid order of the settlement officer and the consequent mutations Exs.D1 and D2 to be null, illegal and void and not binding on their rights by submitting that these mutations were sanctioned without notice to them and without any jurisdiction and after expiry of the period of limitation. Plaintiffs claimed that they along with proforma defendants be declared as owners in joint possession of the suit property as per their respective shares as shown in mutation Ex.P7 and that VIVEK PAHWA the contesting defendants be restrained from alienating the suit land to the extent of more than their share.

5.1 Contesting the suit, defendants denied that Smt. Sarvan was ever married to Molar, or that after his death, she performed Karewa marriage with Lala Ram. According to them, Sarvan was married only t