IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Balwant (deceased) thr LRs and Others . . . . Appellants Vs.

Smt. Ram Bai and Others . . . . Respondents II. RSA-601-1993 Balwant (deceased) thr LRs and Another . . . . Appellants Vs.

Smt. Ram Bai and Others . . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 12.01.2026 Pronounced on: 19.01.2026 Pronounced fully/opera4ve part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Vijay S. Kajla, Advocate for LRs of appellant No.2.

Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Kaushik, Advocate and Mr. Haripal, Advocate for the respondents.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated

19.09.1992, passed by the learned Addi.onal District Judge, Hisar, whereby the two separate judgments both dated 29.04.1989 rendered by the learned Trial Court in two connected suits were reversed.

2. Brief Facts : One Prema had four sons, namely Sodagar, Sishpal, Ganga Ram and Ghana Ram. Ganga Ram had renounced the worldly long back and became a hermit. Sishpal died issue-less on 20.08.1978. His other two brothers, Sodagar and Ghana Ram, had pre-deceased him. The plain.ffs Bal- want Singh and others (appellants herein) are the legal heirs of Ghana Ram, whereas defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the legal heirs of Sodagar. The dispute per- tains to 91 Kanal 10 Marla of land, which admi9edly stood in the ownership of deceased Sishpal.

3.1 Plain(cid:16)ffs’ Case : According to the plain.ffs, a;er the death of Sish- pal, they along with defendant Nos.2 to 5 came into possession of the suit land as co-sharers, being the legal heirs of Sishpal. However, defendant No.2 began proclaiming himself to be the exclusive owner of the suit land. On inspec.ng the revenue record, the plain.ffs discovered that defendant Nos.2 to 5, in a clandes- .ne manner, had produced defendant No.1 Smt. Ram Bai before the revenue authori.es and, by falsely projec.ng her as the widow of Sishpal, succeeded in ge=ng muta.on No.2876 sanc.oned regarding the inheritance of Sishpal in her favour. The plain.ffs asserted that Smt. Ram Bai was never married to Sishpal and, therefore, was not his widow. It was further alleged that therea;er, defen- dant No.3 got executed a fic..ous mortgage deed pertaining to 24 Kanal out of the suit land, while defendant No.2 procured a forged and fic..ous Will in his favour allegedly executed by defendant No.1.

3.2 The plain.ffs challenged the muta.on of inheritance, the mort- gage deed as well as the Will, and sought a decree of declara.on to the effect that they along with defendant Nos.2 to 5 were co-owners in possession of the suit land as legal heirs of Sishpal; that defendant No.1 had no right or concern with the suit land; and that muta.on No.2876 dated 08.11.1978 was illegal, void, having been sanc.oned on the basis of fraud and misrepresenta.on. They also sought a decree of permanent injunc.on restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession. In the alterna.ve, they prayed for a decree of joint possession to the extent of 5/9th share in case they were found not to be in possession.

4. Defence : The defendants raised preliminary objec.ons regarding maintainability, estoppel and locus standi of the plain.ffs. On merits, it was pleaded that Smt. Ram Bai was the legally wedded wife and widow of deceased Sishpal and, therefore, was the sole heir en.tled to inherit his property. The mu- ta.on of inheritance, the mortgage deed and the Will were all defended as valid and genuine. It was further pleaded that the plain.ffs had full knowledge of the muta.on, mortgage and Will from the very beginning and, therefore, were estopped from challenging the same. Dismissal of the suit was accordingly prayed for.

5. In replica.on, the plain.ffs reiterated their stand and controverted the defence set up by the defendants.

Second Suit by Smt. Ram Bai

6. Independently, Smt. Ram Bai filed a separate suit against Balwant Singh and others, seeking a decree of pe