IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

I. RSA-2727-2022 (O&M)

Kandhara Singh …..Appellant Vs.

Jarnail Singh (dead) thr LRs and Others .….Respondents II. RSA-22-2023 (O&M) Baljit Singh and Another …..Appellants Vs.

Jarnail Singh (dead) thr LRs and Others .….Respondents Date of Decision.:21.01.2026 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Himanshu Puri, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly, and defendant No.6 separately, have filed the present two appeals challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, whereby their appeals against the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit, were dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 13.05.2022. 2. The facts, as borne out from the record, are that Kartar Singh and Khajan Singh, sons of Ganda Singh, were owners of the suit land to the extent of half share each. Khajan Singh died issueless. On his death, his half share devolved upon the plain;ffs to the extent of one-fourth share and defendant No.3 to the extent of remaining one-fourth share on the basis of a Will. Muta;on No.4370 was sanc;oned accordingly. Thus, the plain;ffs and defendant No.3 became owners to the extent of half share of the suit land.

3. Kartar Singh sold his half share in the suit property to Lal Singh (defendant No.4), who further transferred one-third share out of his half share in favour of defendant No.5 Paramjit Singh. Muta;on No.6216 was sanc;oned in this regard. Consequently, the plain;ffs and defendant No.3 con;nued to be owners of half share, as reflected in the jamabandis for the years 1982-83 (Ex.D7) and 1987-88 (Ex.D8).

4. However, in the subsequent jamabandi for the year 1992-93 (Ex.D9), the names of the plain;ffs and defendant No.3 were deleted without any suppor;ng document or order, and ownership of the en;re land was shown in the name of defendant No.5 to the extent of one-third share and defendant No.4 to the extent of remaining two-third share. The plain;ffs asserted that neither they nor defendant No.3 had ever alienated their half share, yet defendant Nos.1 and 2 began claiming ownership over the en;re land. Consequently, the plain;ffs ins;tuted the suit seeking declara;on of their ownership and consequen;al injunc;on restraining aliena;on.

5. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.4 expired and the suit qua him was dismissed. Defendant Nos.3, 5and 6 were proceeded ex parte. Only defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit, claiming ;tle solely on the basis of revenue entries in the jamabandi for the year 1992-93.

6. Upon framing necessary issues and apprecia;on of evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 18.07.2018, holding the plain;ffs and defendant No.3 to be owners in possession of half share inherited from Khajan Singh on the basis of muta;on No.4370. Direc;ons were issued to the revenue authori;es to correct the revenue record accordingly. Contrary revenue entries and muta;ons in favour of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 were set aside and they were restrained from aliena;ng more than their lawful share.

7. Separate appeals preferred by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 were dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 13.05.2022, affirming the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved thereof, the present two appeals have been filed.

8. AFer hearing learned counsel for the appellants at length, this Court finds no merit in either of the appeals. The learned First Appellate Court has minutely re-appreciated the en;re evidence on record and recorded detailed findings, which do not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

9. The Appellate Court correctly found that the ownership of Kartar Singh and Khajan Singh to the extent of half share each stood conclusively established from jamabandis for the years 1972-73 (Ex.D3) and 1977-78 (Ex.P1). The inheritance of Khajan Sing