IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.02.2025 Hartehal Singh and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Mohinder Kaur and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Paras, Advocate for Mr. V.K.Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 are in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, has been decreed by both the courts below.

2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff along with defendant No.5/respondent No.3 herein, was owner in possession of half share in the land in dispute total measuring 144 K 6 M (as fully described in the head note of the plaint); and except the land measuring 32 K as mentioned in the plaint of which possession has been sought from part of share of the plaintiff. Previously, this land was jointly owned by Harbagh Singh/husband of the plaintiff and Harbans Singh defendant No. 5/brother of Harbagh Singh in equal share. Harbagh Singh had given his half share in the land measuring 144 K 6 M to the plaintiff in lieu of maintenance before the village Panchayat and relatives of the plaintiff and Harbagh Singh. As change of ownership was not reflected in the revenue record, the plaintiff had filed a civil suit No. 239 dated 01.09.1983 (Ex. P1 and Ex.P2) which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.1983 Ex.P3/A and plaintiff was declared owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of half share of total land measuring 144 K 6 M. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendants No.1 to 4 were illegally trying to dispossess her of the land measuring 32 K of her share in the above land without the consent of the plaintiff. It has been alleged by the defendants that the said 32 K has been purchased by them from Harbagh Singh vide registered sale deed dated 26.09.1984. It was further stated in the plaint that the said sale deed was never executed by Harbagh Singh; and even if execution of Harbagh Singh is proved, he was not competent to execute any sale deed in view of the decree dated 22.09.1983. As such, the plaintiff sought her title over the suit land and also sought possession of 32 K allegedly purchased by defendants No. 1 to 4 vide sale deed dated

26.09.1984.

3. Upon notice, defendants No. 5 and 6 did not appear to contest the suit. Defendants No. 1 to 4 contested the suit and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It was stated by the defendants No. 1 to 4 that no decree was ever passed in favour of the plaintiff by the court and even if there was decree, the same had never been acted upon. Defendants alleged that they had purchased land measuring 32 K from Harbagh Singh vide registered sale deed for consideration of Rs.80,000/-. As such, they are the bonafide purchasers. The said defendants further stated that they had satisfied themselves regarding the title of Harbagh Singh from the revenue record. Possession was delivered to the defendants by Harbagh Singh on the date of execution of the sale deed. As such, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. In replication, the plaintiff re-asserted her case and controverted the averments made in the written statements.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed: -

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing of this suit in view of the acts and conduct? OPP.

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus-

standi to file the suit? OPD.

4A. Whether defendants are bonafide purchasers for value and without notice of the rights of the plaintiff, if any? OPD.

5. Relief.

6. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned