COCP- 1620-2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. RSA-71-1999 (O&M)

Reserved on :- 30.09.2025 Pronounced on:-13.10.2025 Mahinder Singh and Another … Appellants Versus Girraj Singh (Since Deceased) Through his LRs and Others ...Respondents

2. RSA-3912-1998 (O&M)

Lakmi … Appellant Versus Girraj Singh (Since Deceased) Through his LRs and Others ... Respondents

3. RSA-3913-1998 (O&M)

Lakmi … Appellant Versus Girraj Singh (Since Deceased) Through his LRs and Others ... Respondents

4. RSA-72-1999 (O&M)

Mahinder Singh and Another … Appellants Versus Girraj Singh (Since Deceased) Through his LRs and Another ..Respondents

5. COCP-1620-2008 (O&M)

Mahender Singh and Another … Petitioners Versus Girraj Singh (Since Deceased) Through his LRs and Others ... Respondents ****

COCP- 1620-2008 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Bhanu Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RSA-71-1999; RSA-3912-1998 RSA-3913-1998; RSA-72-1999 Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate and Mr. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1 in RSA-72-1999; RSA-3912-1998 RSA-3913-1998 and COCP-1620-2008.

Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate and Dr. S.K. Bhar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 in RSA-71-1999 for respondents No.3 and 4 in RSA-72-1999;

for respondents No.4 and 5 in RSA-3912-1998 and for respondents No.5 and 6 in RSA-3913-1998 None in COCP-1620-2008 ****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present common judgment is intended to govern the disposal of the four captioned Regular Second Appeals (hereinafter referred to as “RSAs”) and one COCP, all arising from the same legal and factual controversy. Given that the parties are identical in these matters and their respective counsel have expressed concurrence, the RSAs and COCP are being adjudicated together in the interest of judicial economy.

2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the factual background for this common order is drawn from RSA-71-1999, titled “Mahinder Singh and Another v. Girraj Singh (Since Deceased) Through his LRs and Others”, as it comprehensively sets out the relevant facts. Since the issues in the connected matters are substantially similar, the COCP- 1620-2008 facts in RSA-71-1999 shall be treated as representative for the adjudication of all the captioned cases.

3. The present RSAs have been instituted challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, rendered by a consolidated order dated 07.11.1998, whereby five Civil Appeals were adjudicated. The said consolidated judgment confirmed the earlier judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Faridabad, in Civil Suit No. 237/1984, Civil Suit No.108/1986, and Civil Suit No.238/1985.

4. The brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid civil suits are that Sukh Ram was the owner in possession of the suit land measuring 31 Kanals 15 Marlas in the estate of Village Jawan, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. Being an elderly and issue-less person, he was visited by the defendants-Charan Singh and Phool Singh, father and son while defendant Lakhmi claimed possession of the suit land since 1979 in consideration of services rendered by him. Defendants Mohinder Singh and Satpal are minor sons of Lakhmi. All the defendants sought possession and ownership of the suit land from Sukh Ram.

4.1. Defendant Charan Singh contended that Sukh Ram executed a power of attorney in his favour on 16.05.1984, authorizing him to alienate the suit land. Acting on this, Charan Singh executed two sale deeds in favour of Phool Singh on 21.05.1984 and 24.05.1984, thereby transferring the entire suit land to Phool Singh for a valuable consideration. Meanwhile, defendants Mohinder Singh and Satpal claimed that the suit land was COCP- 1620-2008 transferred to them through a family settlement, supported by a decree dated

14.01.1983, wherein Sukh Ram allegedly acknowledged them as owners.

4.2. Sukh Ram filed two civil suits: one against Charan Singh and Phool Singh, challenging the validity