IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.01.2026 Chand Singh (since deceased) through legal heirs ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Mukand Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate for the appellant.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by the appellant for declaration that plaintiff is owner of 1/3 share being co- sharer in land measuring 317 K 7 M as per Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 situated at Dhanaula-D; and his name be incorporated as owner as above in the subsequent Jamabandi for four years; and mutation 6207-D sanctioned on the basis of family partition deed dated 18.6.1984 be set aside; and permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/3rd share of the suit property as described in the head note of the plaint. Defendant no.1 is the real brother of the plaintiff. Both of them owned properties in village Dhanaula-D and Kaleke. It is contended that vide Writing dated 18.06.1984 the properties between the appellant and defendant No.1 were partitioned; in pursuance to which Mutations No. 11237-B regarding property at village Kaleke and 6207-D regarding property at village Dhanaula-D were sanctioned; as a result of which name of the plaintiff got deleted from ownership column in respect of the property situated at village Dhanaula-D; and name of defendant No.1 got deleted from ownership column of the property at Village Kaleke. However, defendant No.1 challenged Mutation No. 11237-B, as a result of which, name of the appellant got deleted from ownership column in village Kaleke, and defendant No.1 became owner of property at village Kaleke. Learned counsel contends that as a result, appellant is now entitled to get back property given to defendant No.1 vide Mutation No. 6207-D pertaining to village Dhanaula-D; and Mutation No. 6207-D on the basis of Writing dated 18.06.1984 is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel further contends that defendant No.1 has not produced Writing dated 18.06.1984 in Court, and therefore, appellant is entitled to declaration and injunction as prayed for. In any event, it is proved that exchange/transfer had been done and therefore, mutation No. 6207-D with regard to land situated at village Dhanaula-D had been sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1. It is submitted that impugned judgments and decrees are based on conjectures and surmises as the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties. It is accordingly prayed that the present Second Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below be set aside.

4. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case filed in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

5. It is the own case of the appellant that the partition had taken place between the appellant and defendant No.1 vide Writing dated 18.06.1984 which was acted upon. Thereafter, land was exchanged between them. However, to prove his own case, it was necessary for the plaintiff to produce the said alleged Settlement/Partition dated 18.06.1984; especially in view of the fact that defendant no.1 in his written statement has only pleaded about partition and not about any exchange. But no such Writing had been brought on record by the plaintiff.

6. No doubt, the Mutation No. 6207-D dated 18.09.1984 Ex.P4 which is assailed by the appellant, duly records that it was sanctioned on the basis of Writing dated 18.06.1984. A perusal of the said mutation shows that it has been specifically recorded therein that the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Kartar Kaur had come present and admitted the oral partition.