IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :- 03.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement:-09.02.2026 Uploaded on:-12.02.2026 Mohinder Singh (M.S. Sahota)

… Appellant Versus Sohan Singh and Others ... Respondents ****

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

Mr.G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harveen Kaur, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Sameer Kumar, Advocate Mr. Nishtha, Advocate for for the respondents.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The instant Regular Second Appeal (for short to be referred as “RSA”) has been instituted by the appellant–plaintiff to impugn the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1997 rendered by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the findings of the trial Court were unequivocally affirmed. The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 08.01.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiapur, had dismissed the suit instituted by the appellant/plaintiff seeking a declaratory decree. The appellant now challenges the concurrent findings of both Courts below as being legally unsustainable and factually erroneous.

2. The brief case set up by the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court is delineated as under:-

The plaintiff challenged the sale deed dated 01.10.1993 executed by Amar Singh in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 on the ground that the suit property, being joint Hindu Family coparcenary property, was alienated without legal necessity or consideration. The sale, having been effected during the pendency of an earlier declaratory suit wherein the property was held to be joint Hindu Family property, was pleaded to be invalid, non-binding, and liable to be set aside, entitling the plaintiff to declaration and joint possession.

3. Upon issuance of notice, defendant No. 1, who is the father of the plaintiff, entered appearance through his attorney but was proceeded against ex parte upon failure of counsel to receive instructions. Defendant No. 2, despite due service, failed to appear and was accordingly proceeded against ex parte. Defendants No. 3 and 4, stated to be residing abroad, were summoned through substituted service by publication and, upon non-

appearance, were likewise proceeded against ex parte.

4. The plaintiff was afforded adequate opportunity to lead ex- parte evidence in support of his claim. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the pleadings and material on record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and judgments of the Courts below, the appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present RSA.

5. The appellant has instituted the present appeal assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the learned Courts below. Upon being found to raise arguable issues, the appeal was admitted to regular hearing and notice was duly issued to the respondents, who entered appearance through counsel and contested the appeal. The matter was thereafter heard at length on the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

6. With a view to ensuring a complete, informed, and effective adjudication of the issues arising for consideration, the entire record of the Courts below was requisitioned and placed before this Court for careful perusal.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length and have bestowed anxious and thoughtful consideration upon the submissions advanced. The pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced on record, and the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below have been meticulously examined. The entire record has been subjected to comprehensive scrutiny to determine whether the impugned concurrent judgments and decrees suffer from any jurisdictional error, manifest perversity, misappreciation of evidence, or other legal infirmity warranting interference in the ex