IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 Date of decision: 22.01.2026

1. RSA-1141-1992 (O&M)

Ladha Ram and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Joginder Bai and others ...Respondent(s)

AND

2. RSA-1476-1992 (O&M)

Karnail Singh and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Joginder Bai and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Davinder Singh Khurana, Advocate and Mr. Zorawar Mavi, Advocate for the appellant No.1 in RSA-1141-1992 and for respondent No.10 in RSA-1476-1992.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate for Mr. S.C.Chhabra, Advocate for respondents No. 10 to 15 in RSA-1141-1992.

Mr. Arshdeep, Advocate for respondent No. 13 in RSA-1476-1992 ***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

RS A-1141-1992 (O& M)

Present second appeal has been filed by defendants No. 13, 14 and 17 against the judgment and decree of reversal dated 04.01.1992 passed by ld. Additional District Judge, Ferozepur; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration as owners of land measuring

17K 14M and for joint possession of the same, has been decreed.

RS A-1476-1992 (O& M)

Present second appeal has been filed by defendants No. 6 to

11 against the judgment and decree of reversal dated 04.01.1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration as owners of land measuring 17K

14M and for joint possession of the same, has been decreed.

2. Both the above said appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as both arise out of common judgments and decrees; in respect of the same suit land; between the same parties; and facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical. For the sake of facility, facts are being drawn from RSA-1141-1992 titled as “Ladha Ram and others vs. Joginder Bai and others”.

3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court

4. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that:-

 Kishan Singh was owner of land measuring 131K 8M.

 Kishan Singh was survived by five sons and four daughters and his wife.

 Thereafter, Ghammo Bai had also died.

 Of the above land measuring 131K8M, Ghammo Bai had transferred

7K 19M.

 As such plaintiffs and other heirs of Kishan Singh were owners of the remaining land measuring 123K 9M.

 All the 9 heirs of Kishan Singh and Ghammo had sold land measuring 18K 4M in favour of Harbans Singh/defendant No.11 vide Sale Deed dated 23.11.1982.

 They also sold another piece of land measuring 16 K vide Sale Deed dated 23.11.1982.

 Another piece of land measuring 15K 12M was transferred in favour of Jarnail Singh.

 Thereafter defendants No. 6 to 8 vide Sale Deed dated 23.11.1982 had sold land measuring 19K 2M in favour of Balwant Singh/defendant No.9. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that Balkar Singh, Mohinder as also Maya Bai, Khanda Singh, Gurnam Singh/defendants No.4A, 18, 1, 3, 4 respectively, had sold away the landed property more than their share in the joint properties, which they were not competent to do.

 The plaintiffs claimed that they still owned 17K14M of land in joint property and they are entitled to possess the same.

 In order to correctly appreciate the dispute at hand, following pedigree table shall be useful: -

4. Accordingly, present suit for declaration as owners of land measuring 17K 14M and for joint possession of the same, was filed on

26.05.1981.

5. Upon notice, defendants had put in appearance and contested the suit. Appellants/defendants No.13, 14 and 17 had filed their separate written statement claiming that they had purchased some portion of land from Khanda Singh and others. They further pleaded that Ladha Ram/defendant No.12 had purchased property from Balkar Singh and Mohinder Kaur vide Agreement dated 9.06.1980 and Sale Deed regarding the land was executed under the orders of the Court. Averments made in the plaint were denied. Dismissal of suit was prayed for.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are owne