IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :-12.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement:-22.01.2026 Uploaded on:-23.01.2026 Mohd. Ashraf and Another … Appellants Versus Sadiq (Since Deceased) through his LRs and Others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishan Pundir, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Heman Sarin, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. This Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellants/defendants, assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the learned Courts below, whereby the suit instituted by the respondents/plaintiff was decreed. The appellants challenge the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned judgments, contending that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court are perverse, suffer from mis-appreciation of evidence. he appellants seek this Court’s interference to rectify the manifest errors in law and fact apparent on the record, and to restore their lawful rights over the property in question.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a decree for declaration and possession, inter alia, on the grounds that the suit land measuring 42 Kanals 19 Marlas originally belonged to Akkal, the uncle of the plaintiff, who was Meo by caste and whose succession and alienation rights were governed by the customary laws prevailing within the community. In accordance with such customs, a Meo widow is entitled only to a life interest in the property inherited from her father, irrespective of the nature of the estate. Akkal having died issueless, his widow, Smt. Rehmani, acquired only a life-estate in the suit land, and the plaintiff, being a collateral relative of Akkal, stood entitled to succeed to the property upon the demise of Rehmani.

2.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Rehmani, in complete disregard of these rights and without lawful necessity or consideration, executed a registered sale-deed dated 04.01.1982 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. The purported consideration of `28,000/- mentioned in the sale- deed is alleged to be entirely fictitious. The plaintiff contends that the said sale was effected without his knowledge or consent and in contravention of his lawful expectancy, and that the transaction is consequently void and inoperative against his pre-existing rights to succeed to the property upon the death of Smt. Rehmani. Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the sale-deed is null and void and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land, together with consequential reliefs as deemed just and proper by this Court.

3. The defendants vigorously contested the suit, categorically denying that the suit land formed part of any ancestral estate of the Akkal or that the customs alleged by the plaintiff governed succession or alienation of the property. The very relationship of the plaintiff with Akkal was called into question, and it was asserted by Smt. Rehmani that the sale of the suit land was effected out of genuine legal necessity, including for her own maintenance, the construction of a house for her daughter, and the marriage of her granddaughter. In addition, the defendants raised several legal objections, contending that the suit was barred by limitation, that the plaintiff lacked the requisite locus standi, and that the claim was otherwise not maintainable in law. The defendants, therefore, sought dismissal of the suit on both factual and legal grounds, asserting that the sale-deed executed in their favour was valid, lawful, and enforceable.

4. Subsequently, the respondents–plaintiffs filed a detailed replication, in which they systematically and emphatically refuted each of the contentions, objections, and legal pleas advanced in the written