IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.11.2025 Balwant Singh and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Gurdev Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the ld. Courts below, whereby suit filed by the appellants for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. It may firstly be pointed out that the present Second Appeal is of the year 2019 and notice has not yet been issued as the matter has been repeatedly adjourned at request of learned counsel for the appellants.

3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs, and defendants No. 1 and 2, are the sons and daughter of Kartar Singh; defendants No. 3 to 8 are the maternal grandsons (dhote) and granddaughters (dhoti) of Kartar Singh; and Defendants No. 9 and 10 are the paternal grandsons (pote) of Kartar Singh. It was pleaded case of the appellants that the suit land in the hands of Kartar Singh, father of the plaintiffs was ancestral in nature. It was pleaded that part of suit land mentioned in para 3 of the plaint has been wrongly incorporated in revenue record in favour of defendant No.2 Jasmer Kaur and Gurmej Kaur (mother of defendant No.3 to 8) by virtue of Mutation No. 786 of inheritance. Release Deed No. 9725 dated 29.01.2007 executed by defendant No.2 and Gurmej Kaur in favour of defendant No.1 is also illegal, null and void; and subsequent Mutation No. 1574 and other revenue records based on that Release Deed are also illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. It was contended that defendant No.1 fraudulently got registered Release Deed dated 9725 dated 29.01.2007 in his favour. No consideration had passed hands. So, title in favour of defendant No.1 was illegal. Plaintiffs are owners in joint possession of the suit land alongwith defendants No. 9 and 10. Defendant No.1 has refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs.

Hence, the present suit was filed on 19.05.2012.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 29.05.2015. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshtra vide judgment and decree dated 23.08.2018. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiffs.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned Courts below were in error in non-suiting the plaintiffs as they failed to appreciate that fraud had been committed upon defendant/respondent No.2 and Gurmej Kaur/mother of defendants No. 3 to 8. It is submitted that the same is proved from Affidavit Ex.DW5/B duly proved on record by DW5 and DW6.

6. Furthermore, the record shows that PW1 Balwant Singh/plaintiff No.1 had been cross-examined at length regarding impugned Mutation No. 786. However, nothing could be brought on record in this respect. Hence, relief could not be denied to the plaintiffs on ground of belated entries of being 35 years old in the revenue record. Moreover, appellants could not have been non-suited merely on ground of non-joinder/misjoinder of parties. Learned Courts below also failed to appreciate that DW1 Gurdev Singh/defendant No.1 had admitted in his cross-examination that after marriage, sisters were living in their respective matrimonial homes and they had never been in possession of land in question. Plaintiffs had also proved ancestral natural of the land by leading cogent evidence. As such, Release Deed could not have been held to be valid. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below be set aside.

7. No other argument is raised on behalf of