IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.02.2025 Chokhraj (now deceased) through his LRs ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Shamsher Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant herein, has been dismissed with costs by both the courts below.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is the ‘plaintiff No.1B’; and the respondents are the ‘defendants’.

3. The brief facts of the case as set out by the plaintiff No.1- Chokhraj in the plaint are that he was owner in possession over agricultural land comprised in khewat no. 24 khatoni no. 32 total measuring 44 Kanal 9 Marla to the extent of its ½ share measuring 22 Kanal 4 Marla and in khewat no. 23 khatoni no. 31 total measuring 48 Kanal 8 Marla to the extent of its ½ share measuring 24 Kanal 4 Marla (suit property) situated in the village Fatehpur Pipa, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari vide registered vaseeka no. 2289 dated 25.06.2004. It has been averred that plaintiff no. 1 was real uncle (chacha) of plaintiff no. 1B and defendants no. 1 to 5 who was unmarried and issueless and so in order to preserve their above-said suit property it was agreed upon that plaintiff no. 1 will equally distribute the suit property in equal shares among plaintiff no. 1B and defendants by way of a gift deed. However, defendants no. 4 and 5 cleverly got registered a gift deed no. 2289 (in dispute) dated 25.06.2004 and got recorded 222/464 share each in their favour whereas got recorded only 20/464 share in favour of plaintiff no. 1B against the will and intention of plaintiff no.1. The above said gift deed was allegedly never read over to plaintiff no. 1 who by acting in good faith had appended his thumb impression thereupon whereas plaintiff no. 1B was intentionally left at home at the time of execution of the above-said deed. That plaintiffs became aware of this fact in 2012 however plaintiff no. 1B and defendants have been cultivating the suit property in equal shares even after the execution of the gift deed no.2289. Hence the suit in hand has been filed and prayer made that the gift deed no.2289 dated 25.06.2004 be declared to have been executed on wrong shares and plaintiff no. 1B and defendants be held declared owners in possession in equal shares over the suit property as well as in the gift deed no.2289. It has further been prayed that any mutation already sanctioned in favour of defendants on the basis of this gift deed no.2289 be set aside and defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession over the suit property as well as alienating the same on the basis of gift deed no.2289. It is further prayed that if during pendency of the suit in hand defendants succeed in alienating the suit property on the strength of gift deed in dispute then the same be restored to its original position.

4. Upon notice, defendant no. 1 appeared and filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Defendants no. 2,4 & 5 herein filed their separate written statement resisting the suit and denying fraud on their part. It was pleaded that though plaintiff no. 1 was owner in possession over the suit property but he had purchased a tractor by taking loan amount from bank after mortgaging his (plaintiff no. 1’s) land and the same was given by him to plaintiff no. 1B and since plaintiffs could not repay the loan amount, therefore, to preserve their property defendants no. 4 & 5 had repaid the loan amount and so they were given more share by plaintiff no. 1 vide the gift deed no. 2289 and with the consent of all family members. As such, plaintiffs were very well aware of the shares mentioned in the gift deed no