IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :19.08.2025 Pronounced on : 23.09.2025 Jatinder Kumar and others ...Appellants Versus Sant Ram (deceased) through LRs ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for Ms. Ishika Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, and Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate for the respondent.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J.

1. The plaintiff-appellants have filed this Regular Second Appeal, raising challenge to the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2000, passed by the First Appellate Court-Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby the findings recorded by the trial Court-Sub Judge II Class, Rajpura, were reversed; the Civil Suit of the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed; and the plaintiffs were held entitled to claim 1/5^th share in the suit property on the basis of inheritance from their father.

Factual Matrix:

2. As per the brief facts, the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for declaration that they are exclusive owners-in-possession of the land measuring 35 Bigha 10 Biswas having inherited on the basis of a registered Will dated 30.05.1978 (Ex.P4) (hereinafter referred to as “the Will”). The plaintiffs are claiming inheritance of brother of their grandfather (Madho @ Dalipa son of Sukhia) on the basis of the Will.

Madho @ Dalipa died unmarried and issueless on 09.08.1978.

2.1 The following pedigree table would elicit relationship inter se the parties:-

Sukhia Madho @ Sadhu Ram Dalipa (owner)

Sant Ram

Mukhtiaro Surti Chinto Chanan Ram (defendant)

Dharmidner Parminder Jatinder Kumar Ravinder kumar Kumar Kumar (plaintiff) (plaintiff)

(plaintiff) (plaintiff)

2.2 The plaintiffs have also sought setting aside the judgment and decree dated 01.09.1984 (Ex.P11) [hereinafter referred to as the “judgment and decree (Ex.P11)”], passed in favour of defendant-Sant Ram by the trial Court – Sub Judge, I Class, Rajpura, in the previous Civil Suit No.362 dated 18.03.1982, as well as the judgment dated 06.06.1985 (Ex.D1) [hereinafter referred to as the “judgment and decree (Ex.D1)”] passed by the First Appellate Court – Additional District Judge, Patiala, confirming the said decree passed in the previous suit, alleging the same to be illegal and nullity qua the rights of the plaintiffs on the following grounds:-

(a)The plaintiffs were minor at the time of filing of the previous suit and they were impleaded as defendants. However, the previous judgment and decree (Ex.P11) is a result of collusion inter se Chanan Ram-father of the plaintiffs and his brother- Sant Ram-defendant. Even the judgment and decree (Ex.D1) passed by the Appellate Court is against the interest of the minors.

(b)No guardian was appointed by the Court to represent the minor-plaintiffs.

(c)Chanan Ram, father of the plaintiffs did not watch the interest of the minors and even concealed the decree from the minor plaintiffs.

(d)The judgment and decree (Ex.P11) and the judgment and decree (Ex.D1) passed by the Appellate Court in the previous civil suit is against the interest of the minor-plaintiffs, since the plaintiffs were to inherit the property on the basis of a registered Will having been executed by the owner.

2.3 The defendant contested the civil suit. It was pleaded that Madho @ Dalipa son of Sukhia was issueless and unmarried. The execution of the Will in favour of the plaintiffs was denied. It was alleged that the land has been inherited by defendant-Sant Ram, Chanan Ram (father of the plaintiffs), Mukhtiaro, Surti and Chinto, in equal shares to the extent of 1/5^th share each. The judgment and decree (Ex.P11) passed by the trial Court in the previous suit, as well as the judgment and decree (Ex.D1) passed by the First Appellate Court, cannot be declared as null & void since the plaintiffs and their father had hotly contested the case and they even filed an appeal against the judgment and decree (Ex.P11). However, this fact is admitted that the plaintiffs were minor at the ti