IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jogender & Anr.

..…Appellants Versus Smt. Chander Kanta & Ors.

…Respondents Reserved on: 18.11.2025 Pronounced on: 19.11.2025 Uploaded on : 19.11.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Advocate for the appellants DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent dismissal of the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration and injunction. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 25.08.2021, dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 03.08.2023 affirmed the findings. The plaintiffs have now approached this court invoking Section 100 CPC.

2.1 The plaintiffs asserted that late Sh. Dhoop Singh, husband of DW.1 and father of defendants No.2 to 5, was the karta of the joint Hindu family owning land measuring 1 kanal 14 marla, comprised in Killa Nos. 7//4/1/2 (0-12) and 7//4/2/2 (1-2). According to them, on 13.12.1988, Dhoop Singh executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.1, intending to convey the entire land, but due to a clerical mistake or oversight, the deed recorded only 0–12 marla in one portion and 0–5 marla in another, total 0–17 marla. The plaintiffs pleaded further that before and after the sale, a family settlement was reached in 1988, under which the whole land and the petrol pump site were allotted to them. They stated that the petrol pump of Firm M/s Kirpa Ram & Sons was installed on the whole 1 kanal 14 marla, and plaintiff No.1 invested substantial capital. They treated the partnership deed of 14.10.1992 (Ex.D1), recording 48% share for plaintiff No.1 and 52% for Dhoop Singh, as a mere technical requirement insisted upon by Indian Oil Corporation (defendant No.6) for dealership purposes and not reflecting true ownership.

2.2 The plaintiffs further pleaded that in 2003, when Dhoop Singh sought Fard Badar to correct the revenue entries, only part of the correction was recorded and the remaining error (relating to the missing 17 marla) could not be rectified due to administrative reasons. The plaintiffs claimed that after Dhoop Singh’s death on 02.09.2003, his legal heirs - defendants No.1 to 5, executed a series of affidavits in May 2004, acknowledging that plaintiffs were owners in possession of the entire 1 kanal 14 marla and had full rights in the petrol pump. Relying on these affidavits, the plaintiffs approached IOC for reconstitution of dealership in the names of plaintiffs No.2 and 3. IOC initially processed the documents but later demanded fresh affidavits from the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, when defendants realized that IOC was not transferring the dealership solely on the basis of the earlier affidavits, they began to interfere and claim rights in the left-out 0–17 marla.

2.3 On these pleas, the plaintiffs prayed for declaration of ownership and possession over full 1 kanal 14 marla, declaration of exclusive rights in the petrol pump, and injunction restraining defendants from disturbing their possession.

3.1 Defendants No.1 to 5 contested the suit asserting a complete denial of the plaintiffs’ extended claim. They consistently maintained that the registered sale deed dated 13.12.1988 conveyed only 0–12 marla + 0–5 marla = 0–17 marla to plaintiff No.1. They emphatically stated that late Dhoop Singh never intended to sell nor ever sold the remaining 0–17 marla of Killa No.7//4/2/2.The defendants further asserted that the petrol pump was always a joint business venture, governed by valid partnership deeds. Dhoop Singh’s 52% share continued throughout his lifetime. They stated that the affidavits given to IOC by Dhoop Singh or by his legal heirs were merely dealership formalities, never intended to transfer title or recognise any transfer beyond what the registered sale deed conveyed.

3.2 They pointed out that mutation No.5023 was properly sanctioned in their favour regarding Dhoop Singh’s remaining 17 marla after his death, and that the plaintiffs themselves, during filing of ob