IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

214 Date of decision: 28.10.2025

1. RSA-1982-2014 (O&M)

Ran Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ramphal and others ...Respondent(s)

AND

2. CR-3131-2014 (O&M)

Ran Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ram Autar and another ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant(s).

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

R S A-1982-2014 (O& M)

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff No.1 against the judgment of reversal dated 09.01.2014 passed by the District Judge, Bhiwani; whereby first Appeal filed by the defendants/respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted and suit of the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed.

CR-3131-2014 (O&M):

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 15.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri and the judgment dated 09.01.2014 passed by ld. District Judge, Bhiwani; whereby application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for awarding punishment to the respondents for violation of status quo order dated

15.10.2005 passed by the learned Trial Court, has been dismissed.

2. Both, the above said Regular Second Appeal and Civil Revision Petition, are being heard together and disposed of by this common order, as both proceedings emanate from the same civil suit and are between the same parties and issues involved in both cases are identical. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from the RSA, and parties are being referred to as per their status in RSA-1982-2014.

3. In order to correctly appreciate the dispute at hand, following pedigree table shall be useful: -

Thhandi Data Ram Mohan (issueless) Sewga Dhari Sanwal (issueless) Mohru Sehaj Ram Ram Swarup Bogadi Chitra Ramphal (Def. No.1)

Khem Chand Ran Singh Sanjay Mahender (plaintiff No.2) (Plaintiff No.1) (Def. No.2)

4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff No. 1 had filed the present suit for declaration that the registered Sale Deed No. 3070 dated 05.10.2005 executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is illegal, null and void. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property is ancestral in nature, and joint property of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2, which has not yet been partitioned. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 have a common ancestor, namely, Thhandi, who was the owner in possession of the suit property. After him, the property came to the shares of his 3 sons namely (1) Data Ram; (2) Mohan; and (3) Sewga in equal shares. After the death of Data Ram, his share was inherited by his two sons, namely, Dhari and Sanwal in equal shares. One son of Thhandi, namely Mohan had died issueless. It was the case of the plaintiffs that entire share of the said Mohan was received in equal shares through mutation by Dhari and Sanwal. This way, the entire land of Thhandi came to the share of Dhari and Sanwal in equal shares upto the extent of 2/3rd share; whereas 1/3rd share was received by Sewga. After the death of Sewga, his property was divided in equal shares between Mohru and Sahaj Ram. Sanwal had died issueless and his entire share vested in Dhari and thereafter Ram Swarup son of Dhari got 2/3rd share out of total land. The share of Sahaj Ram i.e. 1/6th share vested into his LRs namely Chitra and Ramphal in equal shares i.e. 1/12th share each. The share of Chitra i.e. 1/12th share was vested into his two sons namely Sanjay and Mahender (defendant No.2) in equal shares i.e. 1/24th share each. Defendant No.1 got 1/12th share; whereas defendant No.2 had got 1/24th share i.e. equal to 1/8th share from the total land which he had received from Sahaj Ram. It was alleged that defendants in collusion with each other, made a plan to grab the suit land of the plaintiffs, and defendants No.1 and 2 showing themselves as the owners of 1/2 shares of suit land, executed impugned Sale Deed No.