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

RSA-3581-2018 (O&M)

Reserved on: 02.07.2025 Pronounced on : 08.07.2025 DHARAMBIR SINGH @ DHARAM SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS . . . . PETITIONERS Vs.

CHANDGI RAM @ CHANDI RAM AND OTHERS . . . . RESPONDENTS ****

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

Present: - Mr. Arun Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

It is contesting defendant No.1’s Regular Second Appeal against the reversal, in as much as suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by sole plaintiff-Chandgi Ram to be owner in possession of the suit land along with proforma defendants against defendant No.1- Dharambir Singh, was dismissed by the Trial court. However, the appeal filed by the said plaintiff was accepted by the First Appellate Court and the suit was decreed.

2. Assailing the aforesaid reversal, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 that the First Appellate Court has wrongly reversed the well-reasoned judgement passed by the trial Court and that the suit should have been dismissed.

3. This court has considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and has also gone through the paper-book as well as trial Court record.

4. Perusal of the entire record would reveal that one Bhulli son of Ramphal had sold the suit property along with other land to Budha and Chander, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff and proforma defendants way back in 1938 by way of oral sale for consideration of ₹1400/- regarding which mutation No.549 dated 03.08.1938 was sanctioned. The disputed land at that time comprised in Khasra No. 417 (3 bigha 1 biswa). In consolidation, new Khasra No. 456 (1 bigha 7 biswa) and 457 (1 bigha 15 biswa) were allotted. In further consolidation which took place in 1961-62, the abovesaid disputed land was changed to 16 kanal 5 marla, now comprised in Khewat No.9/11, Rectangle No. 45, Killa No. 17/2 (6-12), 23/2 (3-0) and 24/1 (6-13), recording Chander and Budha, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff to be owner of the suit land.

5. Plaintiff assailed mutation No.403 dated 07.06.1963 sanctioned on the basis of judgement & decree dated 07.11.1960, whereby defendant No.1-appellant had allegedly got incorporated his name in the column of ownership, despite oral sale of the suit land to the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff way back in 1938. The entire previous revenue record reflected the plaintiff and his predecessors to be owner of the suit land. By way of the impugned mutation sanctioned in June 1963, the status of plaintiff and proforma-defendants was shown as mortgagee in possession.

6. Defendant No.1 contested suit and pleaded that he was owner of the suit property in view of the judgement & decree dated 07.11.1960, regarding which mutation No.403 dated 07.06.1963 had been sanctioned. He prayed for dismissal of the suit by refuting all other contentions of the plaintiff.

7. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by both the parties was taken to court. Trial Court dismissed the suit by way of judgement & decree dated 28.07.2016 by observing that plaintiff had failed to connect the suit land with the earlier khasra number and had also failed to prove his title.

8. The appeal filed by the plaintiff against the aforesaid judgement and decree was accepted by the First Appellate Court and the suit was decreed on 18.09.2017.

9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no oral sale for immoveable property of the value of more than ₹100/- was legally permissible and therefore, the alleged sale as relied by the plaintiff was illegal and void.

10. There is no merit in the contention. No doubt that the oral sale of immoveable property for an amount of ₹1400/- i.e. more than ₹100/- took place, but it was in the year 1938 and regarding this, mutation No.549 dated 03.08.1938 was sanctioned in favour of Budha son of Ram Sahay, and Chander son of Yad Ram son of Ram Sahay, th