IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ranbir Singh @ Raghbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs . . . Appellant vs.

Kamla Devi . . . . Respondent * * * * *

(ii) RSA No.1227 of 2010 (O&M)

Ranbir Singh @ Raghbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs . . . Appellant vs.

Chand Singh . . . . Respondent Reserved on: February 25, 2026 Pronounced on: March 06, 2026 Pronounced fully/operave part : Fully * * * *

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By:- Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellant in RSA No.3913 of 2003.

Mr. Sanjay Mi al, Advocate for the appellant in RSA No.1227 of 2010.

Mr. Aditya Yadav and Mr. Atul Bhardwaj, Advocates for the respondent in RSA No.3913 of 2003.

Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the respondent in RSA No.1227 of 2010.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

These two Regular Second Appeals arise out of separate but factually interlinked disputes rela+ng to succession to agricultural land measuring 95 kanal 10 marla situated in Village Balwari, Tehsil and District Rewari. Since both appeals involve interpreta+on of the scheme of succession under Sec+on 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the legal effect of compromise decrees purpor+ng to transfer of immovable property, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The factual matrix as borne out from the record including trial court record available on DMS, is as under:

3. The plain+ff, Ranbir Singh @ Raghbir Singh, is in appeal in RSA No.3913 of 2003 against the concurrent findings of the Courts below dismissing his suit for declara+on challenging a decree dated 06.03.1993 suffered by Smt. Chand Bai in favour of Kamla Devi. RSA No.1227 of 2010 arises from a similar challenge by the same plain+ff to a decree dated

05.06.1992 suffered by Smt. Sona Devi in favour of Chand Singh.

RSA No.3913 of 2003 :

4. So far as RSA No.3913 of 2003 is concerned, the undisputed facts are that Sanehi Singh was the owner of the land in dispute. Upon his death, the property devolved upon his sons Balla @ Balbir Singh, Ranbir Singh @ Raghbir Singh (plain+ff), Multan Singh, and Smt. Sona Devi widow of his predeceased son Mam Chand, each to the extent of one-fourth share. On the death of Multan Singh, his one-fourth share devolved upon his widow Smt. Chand Bai, vide muta+on dated 17.11.1987. It is admi ed that Multan Singh and Chand Bai were issueless.

5. During her life+me, Smt. Chand Bai suffered a decree dated 06.03.1993 in favour of Kamla Devi. Muta+on was sanc+oned on the basis of that decree. Chand Bai died on 02.10.1994. The plain+ff, being the surviving brother of Multan Singh, ins+tuted the present suit contending that upon the death of Chand Bai without issue, the property inherited by her from her husband must revert to the heirs of the husband in terms of Sec+on 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He inter alia asserted that Kamla Devi was neither related nor adopted and that the decree in her favour, crea+ng fresh rights in immovable property, required compulsory registra+on and, being unregistered, was void and inopera+ve.

6. The defendant Kamla Devi contested the suit on the plea that she had been brought up by Chand Bai and Multan Singh since childhood and was treated as their adopted daughter. However, neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence was there any asser+on of a formal adop+on ceremony. In her cross-examina+on, she admi ed that no adop+on ceremony had taken place.

7. The trial Court, on apprecia+on of evidence, dismissed the suit on 13.03.2001, holding that Chand Bai, being absolute owner, was competent to suffer the decree, and that the defendant was treated as adopted daughter. The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.05.2003, while no+cing absence of proof of adop+on, nevertheless affirmed the decree on the reasoning that the defendant had been brought up by Chand Bai.

8.1 Shri Rajinder Goel, Learned counsel for the appellant–plain+ff assails the concurrent findings on the ground that although Smt. Chand Bai was the absolute owner of the