IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

Reserved on:-15.09.2025 Pronounced on : 18.09.2025

1. RSA-1647-1992 (O&M)

Rakha Singh (Deceased) through LRs. ….Appellants VERSUS Bant Singh (deceased) through LRs. & Others ....Respondents

2. RSA-1652-1992 (O&M)

Rakha Singh (Deceased) through LRs. ….Appellants VERSUS Bant Singh (deceased) through LRs. & Others ....Respondents

3. RSA-2178-1992 (O&M)

Bant Singh (deceased) through LRs. & Others. ….Appellants VERSUS Rakha Singh (Deceased) through LRs ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate and Mr. Didar Singh, Advocate for the appellant (in RSA Nos. 1647 and 1652 of 1992)

for the respondents (in RSA No.2178 of 1992)

Mr. G.S.Punia, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate for the appellants (in RSA No.2178 of 1992)

for the respondents (in RSA Nos. 1647 and 1652 of 1992).

-.-

TRIPTI SAINI MANDEEP PANNU,J.

1. The above-mentioned three Regular Second Appeals, two filed by plaintiff-Rakha Singh i.e. RSA No.1647 and 1652 of 1992 and third i.e. RSA No. 2178 of 1992 filed by defendants-Bant Singh and others, are directed against the concurrent findings of the courts below. Since all these appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree, they are being disposed off by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial court.

Facts of the case

2. The case of the plaintiff Rakha Singh, as pleaded in the plaint, was that he filed a suit for possession of land measuring 18 kanals 14 marlas out of a total land measuring 92 kanals 14 marlas situated at village Bhanglan, Tehsil Samrala. The plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree dated 09.01.1979 passed in Civil Suit No.374 of 1978 titled Ujjaggar Singh and others vs. Fatta alias Fateh Singh, decided by Shri G.S. Sewak, Sub Judge I Class, Samrala, as being null, void, collusive and not binding upon his rights. According to him, the suit land situated at village Bhanglan was ancestral, joint Hindu family and coparcenary property of the plaintiff and defendants being inherited by their father Fateh Singh from his own father Sobha Singh.

3. The plaintiff also sought possession of another land measuring 7 kanals 13 marlas out of land measuring 38 kanals 6 marlas situated at village Gharkhana. His plea was that the said property was acquired by Fateh Singh from joint Hindu family funds, and therefore the same also partook the character of joint Hindu family property. It was thus claimed that the plaintiff was entitled to joint TRIPTI SAINI possession therein also. The plaintiff further prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring or alienating the suit property on the basis of the decree dated 09.01.1979. The pedigree table of the parties was given showing that Sobha Singh had two sons, namely Fatta alias Fateh Singh and Khiali alias Khial Singh. Fatta Singh was survived by five sons—Rakha Singh (plaintiff), Pritam Singh (defendant No.4), Jawala Singh (defendant No.3), Ujjagar Singh (defendant No.2) and Bant Singh (defendant No.1). The plaintiff, who was residing at Durgapur, West Bengal, in connection with his transport business, pleaded that the defendants had procured a collusive decree dated 09.01.1979 from Fatta Singh when the latter was more than 100 years old and not in a sound disposing mind. The decree was stated to be the outcome of fraud and misrepresentation, as the suit was filed on 19.12.1978 and without any service of summons, Fateh Singh was shown to have appeared and filed a written statement. It was pleaded that such a decree could not deprive the plaintiff of his legitimate share. It was further stated that the mutation No.941 was got sanctioned by the defendants in connivance with the revenue authorities behind the back of the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that he had no knowledge of the decree till 05.08.1986, when on visiting the revenue office after the riots o