IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 14.01.2026 Pronounced on : 25.02.2026 Judgment uploaded on : 25.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced: Full BALKAR SINGH ….Appellant Versus BAR SINGH AND OTHERS ….Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff No.1-appellant aggrieved by the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016 and by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2018.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffs (appellant and proforma respondent No.5 herein) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they continued to be co-owners/co-sharers in joint possession of land to the extent of 2/3^rd share, i.e. 1/3^rd share each, of the plaintiffs (appellant and proforma respondent No.5) in suit land measuring 19 Kanal 5 Marla on the basis of a registered Will dated 20.09.1996 in favour of the plaintiffs (appellant and proforma respondent No.5) and Bar Singh (defendant-respondent No.1). It was the case set up that vide Will dated

20.09.1996 Hukum Singh had bequeathed his properties in equal share to the plaintiffs (appellant and proforma respondent No.5) and Bar Singh (defendant-respondent No.1). It was further the case that the son, namely, Kartar Singh (defendant-respondent No.2 herein) and the married daughters, namely, Amro and Chhindo (defendant-respondents No.3 and 4 herein) were ignored by Hukum Singh in the Will as he had already given the share to Kartar Singh (defendant-respondent No.2) and had solemnized the marriage Amro and Chhindo (defendant-respondents No.3 and 4). An allowance of ₹12,000 per month was also fixed for his wife, namely, Maya Devi, to be paid by all three sons i.e. the plaintiffs (appellant and proforma respondent No.5) and defendant-respondent No.1. However, Maya Devi died prior to his death. It was further the case that Bar Singh (defendant-respondent No.1) was separated by Hukum Singh from his family by providing him land and Bar Singh (defendant-respondent No.1) also took ₹20,000/- in cash from Hukum Singh being his share in tractor-trolley and implements vide receipt dated 06.04.1999. It was further the case that Bar Singh (defendant-respondent No.1) had been threatening the family and that Hukum Singh used to reside with the plaintiffs (appellant and proforma respondent No.5) and there was no reason for Hukum Singh to have executed any transfer deed in favour of Bar Singh (defendant-respondent No.1). However, Bar Singh (defendant- respondent No.1) got transferred land measuring 11 Kanal 16 Marla in his favour vide transfer deed dated 23.09.2009 for a consideration of ₹5,90,000/- and further land measuring 7 Kanal 9 Marla was transferred in his favour vide transfer deed dated 03.08.2010 for an ostensible sale consideration of ₹4,66,000/-. It was the case set up that both the transfer deeds were a result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. It was further the case that Bar Singh (defendant-respondent No.1) had tried to usurp the property of Hukum Singh and he in connivance with Kartar Singh (defendant-respondent No.2) had filed a civil suit against Hukum Singh on the basis of an alleged family settlement and tried to obtain a collusive decree. On coming to know, the plaintiffs (appellant and proforma respondent No.5) filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC and then the said suit was got dismissed as withdrawn. 3. On notice defendant-respondent No.1 appeared and filed his written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits it was contended that Hukum Singh was not the owner of 19 Kanal 5 Marla but much more land. The date of death of Hukum Singh was admitted. It was denied that he executed a Will dated 20.09.19