IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:19.01.2026 Kartara Ram through legal representatives and Another ...Appellants Versus Mukhtiara Ram and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for appellants.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieved by concurrent finding of facts recorded by Courts below vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.12.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Yamuna Nagar vide which suit for declaration preferred by appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed and also by judgment and decree dated 24.01.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide which first appeal preferred by appellants-

plaintiffs was also dismissed.

2. Appellants-plaintiffs vide their suit for declaration had claimed to be exclusive owners in possession to extent of equal share of land measuring 5 kanals 16 marlas. It was asserted that appellants-plaintiffs are joint owners- in-possession of land measuring 9 kanals 2 marlas, having 3/4th share in land, described in paragraph (ii) of the head note of the plaint, as per registered will dated 09.11.1998 executed by their father namely, Kalu Ram. Appellants- plaintiffs had claimed that mutation No.947 and 952 as well as release deed No.4950 dated 30.09.2009 executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 are illegal, null and void. Apart from relief of declaration, appellants-plaintiffs had also sought relief of permanent injunction. Appellants-plaintiffs had asserted that their father Kalu Ram was owner-in- possession of suit land; that defendant No.1 separated long ago and is living separately for more than 35 years from the joint family; that their father had suffered a decree dated 06.11.1993 passed by Court of Sh. S.P. Singh, Senior Sub-Judge, Jagadhari in Civil Suit No.830 of 1993 and appellants-plaintiffs were declared owner-in-possession of land measuring 12 kanals 03 marlas, comprised in khasra No.32//8/2/2 and 7//19/2 and 20/1. The said decree was challenged by defendant No.1 and same was set aside by the Court of Sh. Jagjit Singh, Sub Judge Jagadhari. Appellants-plaintiffs and defendant No.1 were held co-sharers in possession of 1/4th share each and remaining 1/4th was stated to be of Kalu Ram. The appeal preferred by appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 28.09.1998 was dismissed by first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.2000.

3. It is the case of appellants-plaintiffs that father of appellants- plaintiffs had died on 29.07.2002 after executing a registered Will in favour of appellants-plaintiffs on 09.11.1998, leaving all his movable and immovable properties to appellants-plaintiffs. However, no mutation was executed on the basis of said Will. That defendants, in collusion with each other, succeeded in getting mutation No.947, whereby all the legal heirs of Kalu Ram were shown to be owners in equal shares. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 had released their share in favour of defendant No.1 and a Mutation No.952 was entered in favour of defendant No.1. By suit for declaration, appellants-plaintiffs claimed entire suit property on the basis of Will by declaring mutation dated 947 and 952 as well relinquishment deed dated 30.09.2009 to be illegal, void and not binding on the rights of appellants-plaintiffs.

4. Defendants claimed that co-parcenery suit property in the hands of Kalu Ram was held to joint family property in the suit filed by defendant No.1. Appellants-plaintiffs and defendants were declared owners in possession to the extent of 1/4^th share each in the suit property. Further, it was asserted that the alleged registered Will in favour of appellants-plaintiffs is forged, fabricated and vexatious document. It was claimed that defendant Nos.2 and 3 were the lawful owners of the suit property and therefore, they out of their free will, executed relinquishment deed and therefore, dismissal of suit was prayed for