IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.01.2026 BANWARI LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THR LR .... Appellant VERSUS DEVENDER AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated

09.01.2017 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 2. A pedigree table is drawn up hereinbelow :

Mangal – Gyan Kaur | |

| | | |

Mewa Santra Banwari Lal – Phoolwati Bhagwan Singh (D5/R5) (D6/R6) (P/A) | (D7/R7)

| | | |

__________________________ | | | | |

Devender Nand Kishore Rajesh Sandeep (D1/R1) (D2/R2) (D3/R3) (D4/R4)

[*P denotes Plaintiff *D denotes Defendant *A denotes Appellant *R denotes Respondent]

A suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant, namely, Banwari Lal son of Mangal claiming that his father was the owner in possession of the suit land fully described in the plaint and he died on 25.07.1955, before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was pleaded that before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the daughters had no right of inheritance in the property of the father and that the plaintiff-appellant and his brother, namely, Bhagwan Singh are the heirs of Mangal and the daughters, namely, Mewa and Santra Devi (defendant-respondents No.5 and 6) had no right or title in the suit land. Challenge was also laid to the mutation No.371 of inheritance of Mangal in favour defendant-respondents No.5 and 6 as being illegal and wrong. It was further the case that taking advantage of the wrong entries in their favour, defendant-respondents No.5 and 6 wrongly executed a release deed dated 12.09.2006 in favour of defendant-respondents No.1 to 4. The said release deed was challenged as being illegal, without jurisdiction and a mere paper transaction.

3. The defendant-respondent No.1 filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and jurisdiction. On merits it was the case set up that after the death of Mangal, mutation No.371 was entered and sanctioned on 09.09.1960 in the presence of the plaintiff-appellant and Bhagwan Singh. Banwari Lal (plaintiff- appellant) accepted Mewa and Santra (defendant-respondents No.5 and 6) as co-sharers in the suit land and as such the plaintiff-appellant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit. It was further the case that Mewa and Santra (defendant-respondents No.5 and 6) executed a release deed in favour of defendant-respondents No.1 to 4 at the instance of Banwari Lal (plaintiff-appellant) on 12.09.2006 by their own free will and consent. It was further the case set up that the possession had also been transferred in favour of defendant-respondents No.1 to 4 on the basis of the release deed. Defendant-respondents No.2, 3 and 6 filed separate joint written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. Defendant-respondents No.4 and 5 denied the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. Defendant-respondent No.7 also filed separate written statement and requested that the matter be decided as the Court deems fit.

4. Replication was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1) Whether release deed vasika No.4951 dated 12.09.2006 and corresponding mutation are illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside as claimed ? OPP

2) Whether plaintiff and performa defendant Bhagwan Singh are exclusive owners in possession of suit property and defendants no.1 to 6 have no right, title or interest in the suit property as claimed ? OPP

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of injunction against defendants as claimed ? OPP

4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

5) Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD

6) Whether the