(228)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:- 11.08.2025 Pronounced on:- 26^th August, 2025 Kamal Singh through LR Devi @ Jayanti and others ...Appellant(s)

Versus Hem Lata and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Namish Sodhi, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2.

* * * *

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. Respondents No. 1 and 2 – plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that defendant No. 2 their father was co- owner in possession of agricultural land to the extent of 237/951 share out of the total land measuring 47 kanals 11 marlas fully detailed and described in the plaint situated within the revenue estate of village Ladpur, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad.

2. The suit property is ancestral co-parcenary and joint Hindu Family of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 2 was karta. The plaintiffs being daughters of karta are co-parceners. The relationship of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 was not cordial. They were turned out of home alongwith their mother and defendant No. 2 their father even did not attend their marriages and had not provided any financial help. Defendant No. 1 is brother of defendant No. 2. He used undue influence on defendant No. 2 and procured a sale deed of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 7,78,000/- vide vasika No. 6317 dated 18.10.2007. The same is illegal, null and void. Defendant No. 2 always used to remain under influence of liquor and was not of sound disposing mind at the time of registration of the sale deed. He had no legal necessity to sell the suit land. The market value of the property was to the tune of Rs. 25,00 000/- per acre. No sale consideration passed from defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 attempted to take forcible possession of the suit property on 25.10.2007. The plaintiffs came to know about the sale deed.

Hence the suit.

3. The suit was contested by the appellant-defendant No. 1 claiming that the plaintiffs had no right in the suit property. It was denied that the suit property is ancestral co-parcenary and HUF. It was claimed that parties are governed by customary law of Rajputs and the plaintiffs cannot be considered to be co-parceners. Defendant No. 2 was in need of money and due to that reason he sold the suit land to the answering defendant. Furthermore, no income was generated from the suit property and defendant No. 2 represented to the answering defendant that he had spent a large amount of money on the marriages of respondents No. 1 and 2 – plaintiffs and he required money for his own treatment. The answering defendant believing the representation of defendant No. 1 purchased the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 7,78,000/- and the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. Defendant No. 2 also filed written statement contesting the suit of the plaintiffs on the same lines.

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

1. Whether the plaintiffs are co-owners in possession of the land in dispute and defendant No. 1 has got no right, title or interest whatsoever in the same? OPP

2. Whether impugned sale deed, dated 18.10.2007 bearing vasika No. 6317 in favour of the defendant No. 1 qua suit land is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and liable to be set aside? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP

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

5. Whether plaintiffs have got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs have not come with clean hand and have concealed and suppressed the material facts from the court? OPD

7. Whether suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

8. Whether pl