IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

207 RSA-416-2013(O&M)

Date of decision: 06.03.2026 Puran ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Rajesh & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Vashishth, Advocate for the respondent No.12.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff No.3 is in second appeal against the judgment of reversal whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction, although decreed by the Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2007, has been reversed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.01.2011.

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiffs had filed instant suit seeking declaration to the effect that the agricultural land total measuring 178 kanal 7 marlas as described in the plaint, is owned and possessed by the parties as per their shares as described in the plaint. There were total 10 co-sharers as described in Para 1 of the plaint of the total land measuring 178 kanal 7 marla as per Jamabandi for the year 1990-94. It was further averred that after death of one of the co-sharers, namely Sadasukh, who was unmarried, his share was taken by remaining 9 co-sharers. Out of remaining 9 co-sharers, one Kanhi Ram also died. After his death, his LRs sold the share to Ganga Ram son of Ramrattan for sum of Rs.600/- vide registered Sale Deed No.466 dated 20.07.1953. Thereafter, other son of Ram Rattan i.e. Mohan died unmarried; and remaining 8 persons inherited the share. In Jamabandi, share of Kanhi Ram remains as 1/72 but inadvertently, his share was entered as 1/8, which is wrong. It was averred that this clerical mistake is liable to be set aside. It was further averred that shares of plaintiff No.1 were wrongly entered in the Records. Grievance of the plaintiffs was that revenue record depicts wrong shares in the land with regard to the shares of plaintiffs, which are recorded to be less. Accordingly, present suit was filed on

21.09.2005 seeking above declaration.

3. Upon appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, learned Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Narnaul had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2007 as follows: -

“8. In the light of findings on above issues, suit succeeds and is decreed with costs. A decree for declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and performa defendants no.19 to 47 and against defendants No.1 to 18 whereby shares of the parties in the suit property are declared in the manner and to the extent as fully detailed and describe in head note of the plaint, land being situated at Village Sagarpur, Tehsil Narnaul. It is further declared that plaintiffs are entitled to seek correction in the revenue records in the light of above declaration. Mutations No. 627, 628, 629 dated 4.12.1986 are declared illegal and set aside. Concerned revenue officials are directed to make necessary entries in revenue records accordingly. Decree sheet be drawn separately. File be consigned with govt. recorder after due compliance.”

4. Against the said judgment and decree, Omdutt/defendant No.12 son of Ram Swaroop son of Kanha had filed Civil Appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.01.2011. Hence, present second appeal by plaintiff No.3.

5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff No.3 submits that respondent-defendant No.12 is the only contesting party in the present case who is duly represented. It is submitted that the present appeal can therefore be decided in the absence of remaining respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.01.2011 by submitting that the learned First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that when Jamabandi was prepared after consolidat