IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

143 RSA-75-2026(O&M)

Date of decision:19.01.2026 Lajpat (since deceased ) through legal representatives ...Appellant Versus Phullo Devi (since deceased) and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for appellant.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved by judgment and decree dated

22.03.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Yamuna Nagar vide which suit preferred by appellant-plaintiff for declaration was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 28.11.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide which first appeal preferred by appellant-plaintiff was also dismissed.

2. Appellant-plaintiff in the suit for declaration claimed that respondent No.1-defendant No.1 is her real sister, respondent No.2-defendant No.2 is his mother and pro forma respondent No.3-defendant No.3 is his real brother. Appellant-plaintiff further asserted that Sunder Lal his pre-deceased brother had died leaving behind his legal heirs, who have been impleaded as defendant Nos.4-A to 4-D and similarly legal heir of sister of appellant- plaintiff namely, Shakuntla Devi were impleaded as defendant Nos.5-A to 5- D. Appellant-plaintiff has not claimed any relief against defendant Nos.2 to 5. 3. It is the case of appellant-plaintiff that suit property is ancestral property. That respondent No.1-defendant No.1 was married at Jagadhri and was staying at her maternal home. That in year 1991 respondent No.1- defendant No.1 had asked her father to pay value of agricultural land in her name to the extent of 1/6^th share and accordingly her share was paid in cash. The value of land in the name of their father Kundan was found to be Rs.1,96,000/- and accordingly 1/6^th share amounting to Rs.28,000/- was duly paid to respondent No.1-defendant No.1 and respondent No.1-defendant No.1 had agreed to forego all her rights and share in the suit property. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 had also executed an affidavit dated 27.05.1991 signed not only by her but also by her husband, wherein she admitted having received her claim in the suit property. It is asserted that their father-Kundan had paid Rs.28,000/- after receiving Rs.31,000/- from one Manjit Singh vide agreement dated 04.04.1991. That father of appellant-plaintiff died on 02.07.2004. Appellant-plaintiff as well as defendants, after excluding respondent No.1-defendant No.1 who had already relinquished her share in ancestral property, agreed to get mutation of inheritance recorded in their favour. However, defendant No.1 secretly got mutation No.1585 dated 21.01.2006 entered and sanctioned in her favour. Accordingly, appellant- plaintiff had sought declaration that mutation No.1585 dated 21.01.2006 is null and void and defendant No.1 has got right in suit property owned by their father.

4. On notice, respondent No.1-defendant No.1 asserted that mutation was rightly entered and sanctioned to the extent of 1/6^th share. It was asserted that respondent No.1-defendant No.1 had never relinquished her share in the suit property as alleged by appellant-plaintiff and accordingly prayed for dismissal of suit.

5. Following issues were framed by learned Courts below:-

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for?OPP ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD iv) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD v) Whether plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit by his own acts and conduct/OPD vi) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD vii) Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the Court?OPD viii) Relief.

6. The simple case of appellant-plaintiff is that respondent No.1- defendant No.1 has already relinquished her 1/6^th share in the suit property as she had recei