IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 19.09.2025 Pronounced on: 28.10.2025 RSA-4103-2016(O&M)

Surjit Singh & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Gurdeep Singh & Others ...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate Mr. Didar Singh, Advocate Ms. Aneet Kaur, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present second appeal has been filed by the defendants No.1, 2 and 4 laying challenge to the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff has been allowed; and suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for declaration, has been decreed “for joint possession of ½ share in the entire land (i.e. 1/4th share of his father Sardara Singh besides his own 1/4th share in the in the entire land) which once stood in the name of Sardara Singh as per judgment and decree dated

21.8.1998 Ex.D1 & Ex.D2 and the defendants are permanently restrained from alienating the suit land without getting it partitioned except in due course of law…”; thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2014 passed by the learned trial court whereby suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed holding the plaintiff entitled to recovery of ₹16,800/– from each of the defendants no.1 to 4, and ₹16,800/– collectively from defendants no.5 to 7.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he is “owner in possession of land comprised in Kh./Kh. No.58/76, Khasra No.434/1(7-16), 468(8-8), 469(6-10), 380/5(0-12) situated in village Revenue Limit Mamupur, H.B. No.381, Teh. Kharar, Distt. SAS Nagar Mohali vide Jamabandi to the year 2003-04 and mutation No.2261 sanctioned in favour of the defendants along with plaintiff on 29.08.2008 is illegal, null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating any portion out of the suit land in alternative suit for recover of Rs.16,800/- from defendants No.1 to 4 and for recovery of Rs.16,800/- from defendants No.5 to 7 collectively.”

3. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the suit land was owned by Sardara Singh (father of the plaintiff, and defendants No.1 to 4, and Avtar Singh.) The defendants No.5 to 7 are the legal heirs of Avtar Singh/ who is brother of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4. It was pleaded in the plaint that Sardara Singh had been living with the plaintiff who had been serving him. As such, Sardara Singh had executed a registered Will dated 07.06.2005 in favour of the plaintiff, as per which he had bequeathed all his properties in favour of the plaintiff. Sardara Singh died on 12.07.2005 in the house of the plaintiff and he was cremated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had performed all the ceremonies and last rites. However, the defendants in connivance with Revenue Officials had got the impugned mutation No.2261 entered and sanctioned in favour of all the defendants and plaintiff, without notice to the plaintiff. Thus, the said mutation was illegal, null and void as it was sanctioned at the back of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that in the presence of the registered Will, mutation in favour of all legal heirs could not have been sanctioned. Moreover, part of the suit land was under mortgage without possession with the Kharar Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd., Kharar for a loan amount of Rs.70,000/-. The plaintiff considering himself to be owner of the suit land had even repaid loan amount of Rs.1,17,600/- including interest. However, one month back, the plaintiff had come to know about the above- said illegal mutation. It was averred that “in case suit of the plaintiff is not decreed as it is due to any reason, even then the plaintiff can be held owner upto the extent of 2/7 share out of the suit land along with recovery of amount upto the extent of 5/7 share out of total amount loan and interest amounti