IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :- 15.10.2025 Pronounced on :-27.10.2025 Jagdish Chander … Appellant Versus Jai Gopal and Another ... Respondents ****

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

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Brahmjot Singh Nahar, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Rajeev Kataria, Advocate, with Ms. Neelam Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

The appellant/plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28th May 1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, in Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1992, whereby the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 19th January 1989 of the learned Sub-Judge IIIrd Class, Fazilka, in Case No. 293-A-I of 23^rd/27^th May 1987, RBA-112-1 of 26^th February 1991, titled “Thakur Dass vs. Jai Gopal and Another”, was erroneously reversed, most respectfully invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 by way of the present Regular Second Appeal (here-in-after to be referred ‘RSA’), seeking restoration of the decree passed by the learned Trial Court and appropriate redress for the substantial injustice suffered.

1.1. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are manifestly perverse, being founded upon fundamental errors of law and a grossly erroneous evaluation of evidence, resulting in a palpable miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances, the appellant humbly prays for the intervention of this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and restore the lawful and well-reasoned decree of the learned Trial Court.

2. For clarity and convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants, consistent with their respective positions before the learned Trial Court. The salient facts leading to the present proceedings are summarized below:-

“The plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 are real brothers, while Defendant No. 1 is their nephew. The plaintiffs and Defendant No. 2 jointly purchased the house bearing Municipal Committee No. 840, Arya Samaj Chowk, Fazilka, under a sale deed dated 7.11.1968. The defendants, acting in collusion, subsequently filed Civil Suit No. 398/1983, claiming ownership of the house by adverse possession. A consent decree dated 23.5.1984 was obtained by the defendants through fraud and undue influence.

The plaintiff, elderly and physically handicapped, along with his widowed daughter, Shanti Devi, was subjected to coercion and confinement by the defendants. On 29.10.1983, the defendants produced pre-drafted documents and blank papers, which they forced the plaintiff to sign under threats, including threats to his life and misuse of signatures purportedly obtained from his brothers.

Fearing for their safety, the plaintiff and his daughter temporarily relocated to Delhi until April 1984. Upon returning, the defendants presented an agreement, affidavit, and purported arbitration award bearing the plaintiff’s signatures, claiming they were executed on the blank papers of October 1983. The plaintiff was coerced into making a court statement under misrepresentation and threats, unaware of the defendants’

claims.

The plaintiff discovered the fraudulent scheme on

28.5.1984 when his son, Jagdish Chander, attempted to obtain certified copies of the decree but was threatened by the defendants. The plaintiffs assert that they are the lawful owners of the property, have received their lawful share of profits, and that Jai Gopal and Jugal Kishore never possessed the property.

A subsequent application under Section 151 CPC to set aside the decree was dismissed on procedural grounds. The present suit seeks declaration of ownership and protection of rights in the property, arising from the defendants’ fraudulent and coercive actions.”

3. Upon service of notice, the defendants/respondents appeared and filed their written statement, submitting the plaintiff’s suit is misconceived