IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :- 04.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement:-09.02.2026 Uploaded on:- 9.2.2026 Kirpal Kaur @ Palo … Appellant Versus Tara Singh and Others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate with Mr. Aparna Singhal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 14.08.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court were affirmed in their entirety. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.1989 rendered by the learned Sub Judge, Patti, had decreed the suit instituted by the respondents–plaintiffs seeking possession of the suit property. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, the appellant has approached this Court contending that the impugned findings are legally unsustainable and vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record.

2. The factual backdrop of the case, briefly delineated from the pleadings on record, is as under:-

That Tara Singh and Amrik Singh, respondents No. 1 and 2, instituted a suit for possession in respect of land measuring 65 kanals and 4 marlas, situated in village Sito Meh Jhuggian, Tehsil Patti, fully detailed and described in the heading of the plaint, against the appellant and other respondents. It was averred that the suit land was owned and possessed by Narain Singh, defendant No. 1, who, acting through his attorney, defendant No. 2, executed a registered sale deed dated 12.02.1986 in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration of `48,500/-, and delivered possession thereof to them. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the appellant and other defendants had forcibly dispossessed them from the suit land approximately two months prior to the institution of the suit on 07.03.1987. Despite repeated requests to restore possession, the defendants failed to do so, thereby constraining the plaintiffs to institute the present suit.

3. Upon issuance of notice, defendant No. 7, Parsin Kaur, admitted the plaintiffs’ claim and raised no objection to the decree of the suit. Only defendants No. 3 and 13, namely Kirpal Kaur and Bali Singh, contested the suit; the remaining defendants, despite service, were proceeded against ex parte. In their joint written statement, the contesting defendants raised preliminary objections regarding lack of locus standi, invalidity of the alleged sale deed, non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, and limitation. On merits, they denied the plaintiffs’ averments, asserted Gian Singh’s ownership, relied upon a registered Will dated 18.05.1975 in favour of Kirpal Kaur, and pleaded due sanction of mutation thereon. They further denied delivery of possession and execution of the sale deed, praying for dismissal of the suit.

4. Tara Singh and Amrik Singh, the plaintiffs, filed a replication to the written statement submitted by the appellant and Bali Singh, respondent, wherein they specifically controverted the assertions made therein and reaffirmed, in entirety, the averments set out in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the following issues for determination:–

1. Whether defendant No.1 has formally appointed defendant No.2 as his general attorney as alleged ? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs have purchased the suit land from defendant No.1 through his attorney defendant No.2 through a registered sale deed dated 12.2.1986 for a consideration of `48,500/- and got possession of the land? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit on account of the fact that the alleged sale dead is without jurisdiction and fraud as alleged ? OPD

4. Whether the suit is bad