IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment Reserved On 16.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on 28.01.2026 NAZIR KHAN ....APPELLANT VERSUS SHAUKAT ALI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vidushi, Advocate and Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant, challenging the impugned judgments and decrees dated 07.02.2000 and 11.02.2002, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, and the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, respectively, whereby the suit for declaration and possession filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed and the first appeal against the said dismissal was also dismissed.

2. The appellant-plaintiff, in his suit for declaration and possession, pleaded that Sahibzadi Boo Qudisia Begum (hereinafter referred to as Qudisia Begum), widow of Abdul Rehman Khan, son of Mohd. Ali Khan, was the owner in possession of the suit property. That she, being an old lady, started residing with the plaintiff in the suit property. About 8–9 years prior, she orally gifted the entire building to the plaintiff in the presence of respectables and delivered possession thereof to him. The plaintiff-appellant accepted the gift and came into possession of the building. That actual possession of Room Nos. 1 to 6, Verandah No. 7, and Courtyard Nos. 8 and 9, shown in red colour in the site plan, was delivered to the plaintiff, whereas the remaining portion shown in green colour remained in possession of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Malerkotla. Subsequently, she executed a memorandum of gift dated 24.12.1988 in respect of the oral gift, acknowledging the possession of the plaintiff-appellant. That she had also executed a Will dated 21.02.1989 giving her property to plaintiff before her death on 21.07.1991. The appellant-plaintiff had initially filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant No. 1 and during the pendency of the said suit, plaintiff by way of amendment further sought declaration and mandatory injunction on the ground that defendant No. 1 along with Mohd.

Ali (defendant No. 3) had dispossessed him from the suit property.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. The ownership and possession of Qudisia Begum over the suit property were admitted. It was also admitted that she was governed by Mohammedan Law. However, it was denied that she had ever resided with the plaintiff as claimed. It was asserted that the plaintiff was not even allowed to enter into her residential portion. That it was defendant No. 3 who used to serve and look after her. Alleged oral gift in favour of the plaintiff was denied as false and incorrect. Delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff was also denied. It was claimed that she had remained in possession of the entire building throughout her lifetime. That after her death, defendant No. 3, being the General Attorney of Mohd. Farook Khan of Lahore, in whose favour Qudisia Begum had executed a valid registered Will, has been receiving rent from the tenants, and that the son of Mohd. Ali, i.e. defendant No. 1-Shaukat Ali, is residing in a portion of the property with his family. The defendants denied that the plaintiff ever came into possession of the suit property. The memorandum of gift dated 24.12.1988 was alleged to be forged and fictitious and was denied to have been executed by Qudisia Begum. It was claimed that defendant No. 3 and his nephew were the persons who had served her and provided her with all necessities of life. The allegation of dispossession of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit was also denied. Preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit were raised