IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 17.02.2026 SHIV BHAWAN THAPAR .... Appellant VERSUS TRIBHAWAN THAPAR AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Kulbhushan Raheja, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Akhil Kashyap, Advocate for Mr. P.K. Kataria, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed by defendant No.1-appellant herein challenging the concurrent findings of facts returned by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014 and by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2019.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondents No.1 and 2 herein filed a suit for separate possession by way of partition by metes and bounds to the extent of 1/4^th share each in Bungalow No.H.M.17, Housing Board Colony, Green Avenue, Amritsar measuring 200 square yards as also for permanent injunction. It was the case set up that Jagdish Mohan Thapar son of Dewan Dasonda Singh, father of the plaintiff- respondents No.1 and 2 and defendants No.1 and 2 (appellant and respondent No.3 herein) was the owner of the suit property. It was averred that the father of the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 and defendants No.1 and 2 (appellant and respondent No.3 herein) expired on 04.01.2011 at Amritsar at the age of about 90 years. His wife, namely, Kailash Rani Thapar, predeceased him on 17.01.2010. It was further the case set up that the father of the plaintiff- respondents No.1 and 2 and defendants No.1 and 2 (appellant and respondent No.3 herein) had retired as Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Amritsar in the year 1979 and he owned various movable and immovable properties. The house in dispute was allotted to him by Punjab Housing Board on 12.06.1979 and possession was delivered on 20.06.1979. After the allotment, the father of the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 and defendants No.1 and 2 (appellant and respondent No.3 herein) raised construction thereon after getting the site plan sanctioned from Punjab Housing Board and the installments were also paid by him. Intkal was executed on 13.06.1995 in favour of the father of the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 and defendants No.1 and 2 (appellant and respondent No.3 herein). Jagdish Mohan Thapar died on 04.01.2011, who is stated to have executed a registered Will dated 08.03.2006 and as per the said registered Will the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 and defendants No.1 and 2 (appellant and respondent No.3 herein) were to inherit the property in equal shares i.e. 1/4^th share each. Since a dispute was raised by defendant No.1-appellant herein, the present suit was filed.

3. On notice defendant No.1-appellant herein filed his written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was the case set up that the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 were not in possession of the suit property and that the suit was based upon false and frivolous facts. It was further the stand taken that the suit property was in the name of the father of the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 and defendants No.1 and 2 (appellant and respondent No.3 herein) only in a fiduciary relation and defendant No.1- appellant herein had got the construction done from his own funds. It was further the stand that Jagdish Mohan Thapar was not the owner of the property and that he was just a benaamidar. The execution of the registered Will dated

08.03.2006 was also denied.

4. Replication was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to separate possession by way of partition by metes and bounds as prayed for in the head note of the plaint ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP

3-A Whether a legal and valid Will dated 08.03.2006 was executed by. Sh. J.M. Thap