IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Nachhatar Singh and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Surjit Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for the appellants.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendants No. 1 and 2 are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the ld. District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for declaration and permanent injunction, has been partly decreed with costs by both the District Courts. 2. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he is owner of 1/8 share of the land comprised in Khewat No.308, Khatoni No.436, Rect.No.166, Killa No.10/2 (0K-16M), and he is also owner in possession of 1/8 share of the land comprised in Khewat No.388. Khatoni No.554, Rect. No 146, Killa No.23/2 (7K-0M). Rect.No.166. Killa No.3/2 (3K-0M), Kitta 2, area measuring 10 Kanal 0 Marla situated within the revenue estate of Village Jalalana, Tehsil & District Sirsa, being a legal heir of Nand Kaur alias Bibi, daughter of Bhag Singh. It was pleaded in the plaint that initially, Nand Kaur alias Bibi, predecessor in interest of the parties, was owner in possession of the suit property. Nand Kaur died on 28.05.2013. She had four sons and four daughters. One of the daughters namely Chotto Kaur also died. It was pleaded that therefore, the suit property was succeeded to by the plaintiff, defendants, and the performa defendants being the surviving legal heirs of Nand Kaur. Accordingly, declaration was sought that the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/8th share of suit property.

3. It was further averred in the plaint that in June 2013, plaintiff came to know that defendants have obtained a forged Will of Nand Kaur alias Bibi. Accordingly, on 19.06.2013, plaintiff moved an application to the Tehsildar for not entering the mutation on the basis of forged Will dated 03.04.2013. However, vide order dated 16.09.2016, the District Revenue Officer, Sirsa had ordered that mutation be sanctioned in favour of the defendants on the basis of the said Will. It was prayed that the said order be set aside; and the alleged Will being illegal, be also set aside.

4. It was further pleaded that plaintiff had also registered an FIR No. 346 dated 08.12.2014 against the defendants and witnesses of the said Will; in which challan had been submitted in Court. Defendants had refused to accept the claim of the plaintiff. Accordingly, present suit was filed on 24.10.2016; seeking further declaration that the Will dated 03.04.2013 is illegal, forged, wrong, result of fraud and the same is liable to be set aside; and that the consequent mutation No. 4024 sanctioned on the basis of said Will is liable to be set aside; and a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.

5. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dabwali, had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.2018 in the following manner:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of issues No. 1 & 2 and the evidences placed on record, the present suit is hereby partly decreed with cost to the effect that it is hereby declared that the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/8th share of the suit property being legal heir of Nand Kaur alias Bibi. It is hereby further declared that the impugned Will is liable to be set-aside. Moreover, the consequent mutation bearing No. 4024 is also liable to be set- aside. Further, the plaintiff has the right to get a mutation entered and sanctioned in his favour of 1/8 share of the suit/property.”

6. Civil Appeal filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 was dismissed with costs by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2021. Hence, present second appeal by defendants No.