IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (117 Date of Decision:-09.02.2026 KR. VIJAY LAXMI … Appellant Versus DINESH SACHDEVA AND ANOTHER ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Jasmer Singh Rozera, Advocate for the appellant.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed in toto. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2018 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, had partly decreed the suit instituted by the appellant–plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The appellant now calls into question the concurrent findings of the courts below, contending the same to be legally untenable and vitiated by errors of law and fact.

2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff and Sh. Ujjval Pal Singh jointly purchased Plot Nos. 97 and 98, measuring 1003 sq. yards, situated at Village Dabua, Faridabad, vide registered sale deed dated 19.09.1985, in equal shares. The parties constructed rooms on the said land to run a public school and subsequently constituted and registered Manav Sewa Public School Society in 1989, with the plaintiff as Head Mistress and Sh. Ujjval Pal Singh as President, while retaining ownership of the land and building, as expressly recorded in the society’s constitution. The plaintiff alleges that defendant No.1, in collusion with Ms. Radha Devi, fraudulently and under threat compelled her to sign documents resulting in an alleged gift deed, which is asserted to be void ab initio, illegal, and non est. Despite complaints to police authorities, no action was taken. Hence, the present suit seeking declaration and consequential reliefs.

3. Upon service of notice, defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed a written statement raising preliminary objections as to maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, limitation, estoppel, and concealment of material facts. On merits, it was asserted that defendant No.1 is the lawful owner in possession of the suit property by virtue of a registered gift deed dated 15.01.2013. The execution thereof was claimed to be voluntary, and dismissal of the suit was sought.

4. Thereafter, the appellant–plaintiff filed a replication, wherein the averments and preliminary objections raised in the written statement were expressly denied, and the pleadings and claims set forth in the plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed. Upon a careful and holistic consideration of the pleadings on record and the rival submissions advanced by the parties, the learned Trial Court, with a view to clearly delineating the matters in controversy and ensuring an orderly and legally sound adjudication, proceeded to frame the following issues for determination: :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for permanent injunction and declaration as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD

4. Relief.

5. Upon the framing of issues, both parties were afforded adequate and effective opportunity to lead their respective evidence. On a comprehensive appraisal of the material brought on record, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of the appellant–plaintiff. The appeal preferred thereagainst, however, came to be dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, the appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of the instant RSA.

6. The appellant has thus instituted the instant appeal assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below.

7. I