IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

RSA-2385-1990 Pirthi Singh and Others . . . . Appellant Vs.

Hari Ram (deceased) thr LRS . . . . Respondent ****

Reserved on: 19.03.2026 Pronounced on: 24.03.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Present: - Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff Hari Ram (now represented through his legal representatives) was decreed, reversing the judgment of the trial Court dated 27.05.1989, which had dismissed the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The record of the Courts below, available on DMS, has been carefully perused.

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the agricultural land measuring 89 Kanal 5 Marla situated in village Bhojraj, Tehsil and District Hisar, and that the sale deeds bearing Nos. 5243 and 5244 dated 11.02.1985, executed by his father Chunia son of Uda in favour of the defendants, are illegal, null and void and not binding upon his rights. A consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession was also sought.

4. The case set up by the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to his father Chunia. However, pursuant to a family settlement, the property fell to his share, and a decree dated 21.12.1984 was passed in his favour. On the basis of the said decree, mutation No.1080 was also entered. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that after suffering the said decree, Chunia was left with no right, title or interest in the suit land. Despite that, being allegedly addicted to bad habits and at the instance of the defendants, he executed the impugned sale deeds dated 11.02.1985, which are thus liable to be declared null and void.

5. The defendants contested the suit by asserting that at the time of execution of the sale deeds, Chunia was the lawful owner in possession of the suit land and, therefore, competent to transfer the same. It was further pleaded that the decree dated 21.12.1984 was not genuinely suffered by Chunia, but was the result of impersonation. The defendants also claimed protection as bona fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

6. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit. It was observed that the most material witness, namely Chunia himself, had not been examined. The trial Court also drew an adverse inference from the fact that the plaintiff did not effectively challenge the expert evidence regarding thumb impressions on sale deeds, thereby lending support to the defendants’ plea of impersonation. It was further held that the defendants had acted as bona fide purchasers after verifying the revenue record, and accordingly, the suit was dismissed.

7.1 However, the First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence, reversed the findings of the trial Court. It was held that the decree dated 21.12.1984 in favour of the plaintiff had not been shown to be fraudulent or the result of impersonation. The mutation based upon the said decree had already been entered on 25.01.1985, i.e. prior to the execution of the sale deeds dated 11.02.1985, though it was formally sanctioned on 04.03.1985. The Appellate Court further found that the plaintiff was recorded in possession of the suit land from Kharif 1985 as per the khasra Girdawari entries.

7.2 The First Appellate Court also held that the defendants had failed to establish that they had made any bona fide inquiry before purchasing the suit property. It w