IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 09.07.2025 Pawan Kumar and another ...... Appellants Versus Dimple Kumar and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL ***

Present: Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate for the appellants.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL , J(ORAL)

This is defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2018, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bathinda dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2012, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda vide which the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff was decreed.

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

3(i). One Kunj Lal had four sons namely Gian Chand, Sadhu Ram, Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Kunj Lal expired on 14.02.1997 and Gian Chand expired on 19.04.2000. Kunj Lal was owner in possession of five properties bearing No.BV-117, BV-187, BV-174, BVI-206 and BV-116, all situated at Goniana Mandi, Tehsil and District Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit properties’). Apart from these five properties, property bearing No.BV-119 was owned by the four sons of Kunj Lal in equal shares.

3(ii). Dimple Kumar son of Gian Chand son of Kunj Lal instituted a suit against the other three sons of Kunj Lal for declaration to the effect that family settlement dated 02.07.1996 regarding distribution of the suit properties was a forged and fabricated document and was illegal, null and void. A declaration was also sought that parties were owners in joint possession of 1/4th share each of the suit properties on the basis of Will dated 07.07.1994. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit properties including BV-119 was sought.

3(iii). The case set up was that Kunj Lal had executed a Will dated 07.07.1994 in favour of all his four sons vide which he had equally distributed the suit properties to them. Gian Chand son of Kunj Lal expired on 19.04.2000. He also executed a registered Will dated 02.12.1998 in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing his entire estate to him. It was alleged that during the life time of Kunj Lal, the defendants, in connivance with two municipal councilors forged a family settlement dated 02.07.1996 and thereafter got the suit properties transferred on the said basis. A complaint had also been filed which was pending in Court.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendants. They filed a joint written statement admitting that Kunj Lal was owner of the suit properties. Execution of the Will dated 07.07.1994 was admitted. It was averred that in the Will, it was not specified as to who would get which property as a result of which, a family settlement dated 02.07.1996 was executed among the four sons of Kunj Lal as per which the suit properties were divided. It was averred that properties had accordingly been transferred in their respective names. Parties had been put in possession thereof and they had been paying house tax.

5. In the replication, averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

4. Whether the suit is within limitation / OPP

5. Relief.

7. Parties led their respective evidence.

7. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the appeal filed against the said decision was dismissed, leading to the filing of the present regular second appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

9. Sh. P.K.S.Phoolka, learned counsel representing the appellants has submitted that both Courts erred in decreein