Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4942
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Virinder Aggarwal, J
Mahinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Girraj Singh – Respondent
RSA-71-1999|RSA-3912-1998|RSA-3913-1998|RSA-72-1999|COCP-1620-2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bhanu Sharma
For the Respondents: Adarsh Jain, Amandeep Kaur, Johan Kumar, S.K. Bhar
A judicial decree predicated on an alleged family settlement where no pre-existing right exists requires compulsory registration to transfer title, and revenue entries pertaining to land possession recorded without mandatory notice to the owner are procedurally invalid and void.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - Section 41 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Appeal - Scope - Second appeal in Punjab and Haryana is to be treated as an appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act; no question of law is strictly required to be framed - Appellate court should not interfere with concurrent findings unless perverse.
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Thumb impressions - Expert testimony - Conflict between standard and disputed impressions - Where experts identify fundamental discrepancies, the court may reject arguments of tampering and hold that the underlying document was not lawfully executed.
(C) Registration Act, 1908 - Decree - Compulsory registration - Where a decree rests upon a family settlement involving parties with no pre-existing rights, the decree requires compulsory registration to convey title.
(D) Revenue Records - Khasra Girdwari - Mutation - Notice - Any change in revenue entries regarding possession must follow due process, including issuance of statutory notice to the affected owner; failure to do so renders such entries invalid and void.
Facts of the case:
The litigation concerned ownership of 31 Kanals 15 Marlas of land. Following the death of the owner, Sukh Ram, various parties claimed title via power of attorney, sale deeds, or alleged family settlements supported by court decrees. The original owner challenged these as fraudulent and obtained through impersonation. Revenue records simultaneously showed unauthorized possessory entries for a third party.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the decree obtained by the appellants was fraudulent and invalid due to lack of pre-existing rights and failed registration. It further held that revenue entries in favor of the occupant were vitiated by procedural impropriety (lack of notice) and the status quo order was not violated as the appellants were never in possession.
Issues: The legality of the judgment and decree dated 14.01.1983; the validity of revenue record entries showing possession; whether the contempt of court was established.
Ratio Decidendi: A judicial decree lacking a basis in genuine pre-existing rights requires registration to pass title; revenue record changes made without mandatory notice to the recorded owner are legally void.
Result: Appeals dismissed; Contempt petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of related civil matters for judicial economy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. contempt of court requires specific allegations of willful disobedience. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 19) |
| 3. registration requirements for decrees and procedural necessity of notice in revenue entries. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Argued by :-
Mr. Bhanu Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RSA-71-1999; RSA-3912-1998; RSA-3913-1998; RSA-72-1999.
Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate and Mr. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1 in RSA-72-1999; RSA-3912-1998; RSA-3913-1998 and COCP-1620-2008.
Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate and Dr. S.K. Bhar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 in RSA-71-1999; for respondents No.3 and 4 in RSA-72-1999; for respondents No.4 and 5 in RSA-3912-1998 and for respondents No.5 and 6 in RSA-3913-1998.
None in COCP-1620-2008.
****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.
1. The present common judgment is intended to govern the disposal of the four captioned Regular Second Appeals (hereinafter referred to as “RSAs”) and one COCP, all arising from the same legal and factual controversy. Given that the parties are identical in these matters and their respective counsel have expressed concurrence, the RSAs and COCP are being adjudicated together in the interest of judicial economy.
2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the factual background for this common order is drawn from RSA-71-1999, titled “Mahinder Singh and Another v. Girraj Singh (Since Deceased) Through his LRs and Others”, as it comprehensively sets out the relevant facts. Since the issues in the connected matters are substantially similar, the facts in RSA-71-1999 shall be treated as representative for the adjudication of all the captioned cases.
3. The present RSAs have been instituted challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, rendered by a consolidated order dated 07.11.1998, whereby five Civil Appeals were adjudicated. The said consolidated judgment confirmed the earlier judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Faridabad, in Civil Suit No. 237/1984, Civil Suit No.108/1986, and Civil Suit No.238/1985.
4. The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid civil suits are that Sukh Ram was the owner in possession of the suit land measuring 31 Kanals 15 Marlas in the estate of Village Jawan, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. Being an elderly and issue-less person, he was visited by the defendants-Charan Singh and Phool Singh, father and son while defendant Lakhmi claimed possession of the suit land since 1979 in consideration of services rendered by him. Defendants Mohinder Singh and Satpal are minor sons of Lakhmi. All the defendants sought possession and ownership of the suit land from Sukh Ram.
4.1. Defendant Charan Singh contended that Sukh Ram executed a power of attorney in his favour on 16.05.1984, authorizing him to alienate the suit land. Acting on this, Charan Singh executed two sale deeds in favour of Phool Singh on 21.05.1984 and 24.05.1984, thereby transferring the entire suit land to Phool Singh for a valuable consideration. Meanwhile, defendants Mohinder Singh and Satpal claimed that the suit land was transferred to them through a family settlement, supported by a decree dated 14.01.1983, wherein Sukh Ram allegedly acknowledged them as owners.
4.2. Sukh Ram filed two civil suits: one against Charan Singh and Phool Singh, challenging the validity of the power of attorney and the subsequent sale deeds, and asserting that entries in the revenue records showing Lakhmi’s possession were illegal; he sought declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. In the second suit, Phool Singh sought declaration and permanent injunction, challenging the judgment and decree allegedly obtained by Sukh Ram in favour of Mohinder Singh and Satpal and also disputing the revenue entries showing Lakhmi’s possession. The third suit, filed
