IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :- 17.10.2025 Pronounced on :-19.11.2025 Uploaded on : 20.11.2025 Jita and Another … Appellants Versus Balkar Singh (Since Deceased) Through His LRs and Others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate with Mr. Nitin Sansanwal, Advocate and Mr. Satbir Mor, Advocate for the appellants.

Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate with Mr. Vikram Amarnath Garg, Advocate for respondents.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

The appellants/plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2003 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra in Civil Appeal No. 251 of 17.07.1997, whereby the well- reasoned judgment and decree dated 21.05.1997 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa in Civil Suit No. 843 of 05.08.1992 was erroneously reversed, most respectfully invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 by way of the present Regular Second Appeal (“RSA” for short). The appellants seek restoration of the decree rightly and lawfully passed by the learned Trial Court, and redressal of the substantial injustice occasioned by the impugned reversal.

1.1. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree suffer from patent perversity, being vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record, misapplication of settled principles of law, and gross misappreciation of evidence, thereby culminating in a manifest miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances, the appellants humbly beseech the intervention of this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and to restore the well-reasoned and legally sustainable decree of the learned Trial Court.

2. To ensure clarity and convenience in the course of this discussion, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants, consistent with their status before the learned Trial Court. The essential facts leading to the institution of the present proceedings are set out below:-

“Jita and Dharam Pal (plaintiffs) filed Civil Suit No. 843 of 1992 seeking rectification of Sale Deeds dated 13.02.1980 and 14.05.1980 executed by Puran (predecessor of Defendants No. 1–7) and Phulla (defendant No. 8), or in the alternative, a declaration of ownership and possession over the suit land. The plaintiffs contended that Puran and Phulla had sold them a total of 38 Kanals 4 Marlas through three registered Sale Deeds dated 02.06.1977, 13.02.1980, and 14.05.1980, after receiving full consideration and delivering possession.

However, in the Jamabandi for the years 1989–90, the land continued to be shown in the names of Puran and Phulla due to the cancellation of Mutations No. 2059 and 2206 without notice to the plaintiffs.

It was further pleaded that clerical errors in Khasra numbers had occurred in the Sale Deeds due to mutual mistake, entitling the plaintiffs to rectification. In the alternative, they sought a declaration that the revenue entries showing ownership of Puran and Phulla were illegal, null, and void, and that the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the suit land situated in Village Sarsa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.”

3. Upon notice, the defendants No.1 to 8 contested the suit by filing joint written statement and raised several preliminary objections, asserting that the plaintiffs’ suit is not maintainable, is barred by limitation, and that the plaintiffs lack a cause of action. They further contended that the suit has been improperly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, and alleged that it was filed in collusion with certain defendants.

3.1. On merits, defendants No. 1 to 8 denied the plaintiffs’ claim in entirety. They asserted that neither defendant No. 8 nor Puran, the predecessor of defendants No. 1 to 7, ever sold or delivered possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs. The execution and validity of th