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

RSA-5231-2015 (O&M) Reserved on:-10.09.2025 Date of Decision : 15.09.2025 Ram Kumar and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Dillo (deceased) through LRs and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Rahul Vohra, Advocate and Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

None for respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

Mr. S.K.Panwar, Advocate For respondents No.12, 13 and 14.

Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 9 were proceeded ex parte Vide order dated 28.03.2025 Respondents No.10 and 16 were proceeded ex parte Vide order dated 24.07.2019 Name of respondents No. 11 and 15 were struck off Vide order dated 20.09.2019 -.-

MANDEEP PANNU,J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2013 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad whereby their suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed, as well as the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2015 TRIPTI SAINI passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad affirming the findings of the learned trial court and dismissing their appeal.

Brief Facts

2. The appellants-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for declaration and injunction claiming that they are co-owners in possession of land comprised in Khasra No.64(1-3), situated in village Basantpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad, to the extent of 1/6th share. It was their pleaded case that Ghusan, predecessor-in- interest of defendants No.1 to 8, and Nathua, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.9 to 11, were co-sharers along with Ram Chand, the predecessor of the plaintiffs, each having one-third share. It was alleged that Ghusan and Nathua illegally and without authority alienated the entire khasra number by executing a sale deed dated 19.03.1962 in favour of defendants No.13 to 15 and also executed a lease deed dated 12.03.1962 in favour of defendant No.13 to 15. On the basis of these transactions, mutation Nos.100 and 101 were sanctioned in their favour. The plaintiffs asserted that since Ghusan and Nathua could not alienate more than their respective shares, the sale deed and lease deed are illegal, null and void and not binding upon their rights, title and interest, and consequently the entries of mutation are also liable to be set aside. Along with declaration, they sought injunction restraining interference in their possession.

3. Upon notice, defendants No.12 to 14 appeared and filed their joint written statement alleging therein that they are owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed dated 19.03.1962 executed in their favour. They further alleged that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is time barred. Denying rest of the contents of the plaint, they have prayed for dismissal of the suit.

TRIPTI SAINI

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court on 19.09.2012:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

5. In order to prove their case, plaintiff Ram Kumar himself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint. The plaintiffs relied upon documentary evidence including Jamabandi for the year 2002–03 (Ex.P1), Jamabandi for the year 1963–64 (Ex.P2), Jamabandi for the year 1959–60 (Ex.P3), copy of lease deed dated 12.03.1962 (Ex.P4 and Ex.P5), copy of sale deed dated 19.03.1962 in Urdu and Hindi (Ex.P6 and Ex.P7), memo of presence (Ex.P8), demarcation report (Ex.P9), documents in Urdu language (Ex.P10 and Ex.P11), and mutation Nos.100 and 101 (Mark A and B).

6. On the other hand, the defendants examined Birpal as DW1, Mah