IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:04.03.2025 DESHRAJ ...APPELLANT VS.

BHAGWANA AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. Appellant, who is one of the defendants, has filed the instant appeal, assailing concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below.

2. Respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that along with proforma defendants No.5 and 6, they are owners in possession of half share each in land measuring 17 marlas situated in Village Alwalpur, Tehsil and District Rewari (for short “suit land”) by virtue of sale deed dated 11.12.1989 and that they are entitled to get their names entered in the revenue record. A decree for declaration was also sought to the effect that release deed by Hari Ram in favour of his sons is a null and void document and is liable to be set aside as the land in dispute had been sold by Hari Ram to the plaintiffs. A decree of permanent injunction was sought to the effect that defendants No.3 and 4 may be restrained from selling or alienating the suit land.

3. Pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that they purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 11.12.1989 and became its owners. They could not get the mutation entered in the revenue record, which reflected the names of the vendors. Taking advantage of the incorrect entries in the revenue record, a release deed dated 12.06.2012 was executed by Hari Ram in favour of his sons Deshraj (present appellant) and Suresh Kumar, who have no right, title or interest in the land. Alleging that the defendants collided with each other and managed to get a mutation sanctioned in their favour, plaintiffs filed the suit. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 4 filed a written statement contesting the suit by taking various preliminary objections. A stand was taken that the suit land was owned by a number of persons, besides Hari Ram and all the co-sharers were necessary parties to the suit. Sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs was specifically denied and it was averred that it is a forged document. It was claimed that the defendants are the co-owners and are in possession of the suit land along with others. The defendants asserted that the release deed is a legal document and the parties are bound by it. Defendants No.5 to 11 were proceeded against ex parte. Trial Court framed issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, who led evidence in support of their respective case. After contest, by judgement dated 10.12.2018, Trial Court decreed the suit. Deshraj, appellant, one of the defendants, filed an appeal, which was rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge by judgement dated 17.02.2021 resulting in the institution of the instant second appeal.

4. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the revenue entries show that Hari Ram, predecessor of the appellant, was the owner of the suit land and he executed a release deed dated 12.06.2012 in favour of his sons, including the present appellant. He asserts that the appellant became owner of the suit land and plaintiffs are not entitled to declaration of ownership. It is his argument that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and its right perspective and have fallen in error while decreeing the suit.

5. I have heard counsel for the appellant and considered his submission besides examining the paper-book.

6. Plaintiffs have lead evidence and proved sale deed dated 11.12.1989, Ex.P-3, which has been executed by Mangal Singh and Hari Singh sons of Jit Singh. By virtue of Ex.P-3, suit land has been sold to plaintiffs and possession has been delivered to them. Taking advantage of the fact that mutation on the basis of the sale deed was neither entered nor sanctioned, Hari Singh executed a release deed No.464 dated 12.06.2012 in favour of his sons Deshraj, appellant herein, and Suresh Kumar. Once the execution of the sale