IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 Samey Singh (now deceased) through LRs and others .......... Appellants-plaintiffs Versus Smt. Kanta and others .......... Respondents-defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant(s)-plaintiff(s). Mr. Saket Bhandari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 9.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

The plaintiffs are in appeal. First Appeal filed by the respondents-defendants was accepted by the learned First Appellate Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit.

[2] By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to judgment and decree dated 05.05.2011 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Karnal (hereinafter to be referred as “First Appellate Court”), whereby judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal (hereinafter to be referred as “trial Court”), was set aside and consequently, suit for declaration and joint possession along with consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by the appellants-

plaintiffs claiming 1/7^th share from the estate of deceased-Sardha was dismissed; thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.

[3] Briefly stating, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration as well as joint possession and permanent injunction while claiming himself to be the owner of 1/7^th share of the suit property. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-Nathi Ram was son of Sardha Ram (since deceased) and the suit property in the hands of the deceased was ancestral in nature. It was further asserted that the Will dated 11.02.1975, allegedly executed by the deceased- Sardha in favour of his other two sons namely, Sadhu Ram and Krishan to the extent of 2/3^rd share and 1/3^rd share respectively was illegal, null and void as the suit property in the hands of Sardha was ancestral in nature, thus he had no right to alienate the same.

[4] Upon appearance, the respondents-defendants contested the suit while disputing the nature of property in the hands of Sardha not to be of ancestral nature. Further, the suit was contested being barred by limitation as well as on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties as one of the beneficiaries to the Will dated 11.02.1975, namely, Krishan s/o Sardha was never impleaded as party to the suit. It was thus pleaded that the suit be dismissed.

[5] On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in joint possession to the extent of 1/7^th share out of the suit land being legal heir of deceased Sardha son of Mussadi?OPP.

2. Whether the will dated 11.2.1975 is illegal, null and void in effective and not binding on the rights of the parties?OPP.

3. If issues no. 1 and 2 are proved in favour of the plaintiff whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent in junction? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct? OPD.

5. ⁠ Whether the plaintiff has got no locus-standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD.

6. Whether the plaintiff has waived his right to file the present suit as such the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is barred by the limitation? OPD.

8. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

9. Relief.”

[6] The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009 decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff(s), while holding the suit property to be ancestral in the hands of Sardha. It was thus recorded that the deceased-Sardha had no right to execute the Will dated 11.02.1975 in favour of his two sons and as such, the same was illegal, null and void. Consequently, the following relief was granted in favour of appellants-

plaintiffs:-

“ In view of the foregoing discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is d