IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 11.02.2026 Pronounced on : 27.02.2026 GANGA RAM AND OTHERS ....Appellants Versus RAM CHANDER AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Gulab Singh Narwal, Advocate for the appellants.

Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)

Appellants/defendants No.4 to 6 are aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 18.12.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, vide which suit for declaration and permanent injunction preferred by plaintiff/respondent No.1 was decreed and judgment and decree dated 19.11.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, whereby appeal preferred by appellants/defendants No.4 to 6 was dismissed by learned First Appellate Court.

2. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 in his suit had asserted that earlier a suit for permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1 titled as “Ramchander Vs. Ganga Ram & Mannsa Ram” bearing Civil Suit No.RBT- 140-2010 and same was decreed in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1 and against appellants/defendants No.4 to 6 vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2014. In execution the suit land bearing Khasra No.498/2/2/1 and

498/2/2/3 and a Gali of 20 feet as shown in site plan Ex.C-2 marked by letters ABCDEFGH was handed over to plaintiff/respondent No.1 on 03.03.2020 in presence of defendants No.2 and 3 under the Civil Court orders. However, mutation in compliance of judgment and decree dated 01.11.2014 was not sanctioned as per terms and conditions of judgment and decree, rather Mutation No.11187 dated 12.08.2015 was recorded contrary to judgment and decree dated 01.11.2014 passed in Civil Suit No.RBT-140- 2010. It is the case of plaintiff/respondent No.1 that appellant/defendant No.3 in connivance with appellants/defendants No.4 and 5 under a conspiracy, deliberately and intentionally manipulated judgment and decree by sanctioning and recording illegally, unlawfully and self-contradictory Mutation No.11187 dated 12.08.2015. It was asserted by plaintiff/respondent No.1 that he in pursuance of decree dated 01.11.2014 has become exclusive owner in possession of suit property. It was further asserted that Transfer Deed No.4296 dated 12.07.2011 as well as Mutation No.10560 of Khewat No.579 was not taken into consideration before recording Mutation No.11187. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 further asserted that despite repeated requests made to defendants No.2 and 3, mutation carried out subsequent to passing of judgment and decree dated 01.11.2014 was not corrected by defendants No.2 and 3 and accordingly, plaintiff/respondent No.1 had sought declaration that Mutation No.11187 be declared illegal.

3. The suit was contested by defendants. Defendants No.1 to 3 took number of preliminary objections regarding maintainability and suppression of facts. It was asserted that Mutation No.11187 was in accordance with judgment and decree dated 01.11.2014. It was further asserted that plaintiff/respondent No.1 had taken advantage of his real brothers who are illiterate, whereas plaintiff/respondent No.1 is an advocate.

Dismissal of suit was prayed for.

4. Appellants/defendants No.4 to 6 have also contested the suit by taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability and suppression of facts. On merits it was asserted that judgment and decree dated 01.11.2014 was obtained on the basis of forged documents which were never signed by appellant/defendant-Ganga Ram and blank papers obtained by respondent/plaintiff-Ram Chander when appellant/defendant-Ganga Ram filed the suit in the year 2008 were used. It was asserted that aforesaid documents were never produced in the presence of appellant/defendant- Ganga Ram on 17.02.2014 and respondent/plaintiff had taken advantage of the fact that he was an advocate and had submitted documents in absence of judgment debtor and got his statement recorded by giving incorrect age and succeeded in getting the decree after a period of 9 months on the basis