IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 25.04.2025 Pronounced on: 07.07.2025 Talwinder Singh ....Appellant V/s Amanpreet Kaur @ Rajdeep Kaur and others .…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Argued by: Mr. Pankaj Maini, Advocate, for the appellant.

****

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

This is defendant’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2022 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ferozepur, vide which the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.3 and 4, and defendants No.5 and 6 and consequent mutations were set aside.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The dispute is with regard to the estate of one Jagroop Singh, who was the owner in possession of land measuring 59 kanals 12 marlas situated in Village Patli, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. Jagroop Singh expired on 19.04.1999. On the basis of a Will dated 15.03.1999 alleged to have been executed by Jagroop Singh in favour of defendant No.1 (Talwinder Singh, son of Jagroop Singh), Mutation No.696 dated 18.05.2005 was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 (Talwinder Singh).

The plaintiffs Amanpreet Kaur @ Rajdeep Kaur and Haven Preet Kaur, both are daughters of Jagroop Singh and sisters of defendant No.1 (Talwinder Singh) instituted a suit for declaration that they were owners to the extent of 1/4^th share each in respect of the estate of Jagroop Singh and that the mutation sanctioned on the basis of the Will was illegal and void since no such Will had been executed by Jagroop Singh. The sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.3 and 4 and defendants No.5 and 6 and consequent mutations were also challenged. (Defendant No.1 had alienated 11 marlas of land in favour of defendants No.3 and 4 and 8 kanals of land in favour of defendants No.5 and 6). The plaintiffs impleaded their mother as defendant No.2 and subsequent purchasers as defendants No.3 to

6.

3.2 The case set up by them was that Jagroop Singh has died intestate and, therefore, his estate was to devolve by way of succession.

3.3 Defendants No.1 and 2 opposed the suit. In the written statement, apart from the preliminary objections, the suit was opposed on merits and it was averred that Will dated 15.03.1999 had duly been registered in favour of defendant No.1 by Jagroop Singh as a result of which the mutation was rightly sanctioned. It was averred that the plaintiffs had instituted the suit on account of greed. The alienation of land to defendants No.3, 4, 5 and 6 was supported saying that the same had legally been alienated since defendant No.1 had become owner of the suit property.

3.4 Defendants No.3, 4, 5 and 6 had also filed their separate written statements raising the plea of being bona fide purchasers of the land for consideration.

4. In the replication submitted to the written statements, the averments made in the said written statements were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

“1. Whether plaintiffs are owner to the extent of 1/4^th share in suit property?OPP

2. Whether sale deed dated 16.04.2014 vide vasika No.55 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.3 and 4 and consequent mutation No.2872 on the basis of above sale deed are liable to be set aside?OPP

3. Whether sale deed dated 08.02.2016 vide wasika No.989 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 and 6 and consequent mutation No.2895 on the basis of above sale deed are liable to be set aside?OPP

4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP

5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to joint possession, as prayed for?OPP

6. Whether the plaintiffs are enti