IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 29.10.2025 Jashandeep Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Malkiat Singh and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the respondents.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of reversal dated 01.08.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar; whereby first Appeal filed by the defendants/respondents has been accepted, and suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed.

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

Buta Singh Lal Singh Pal Singh Dyal Singh Labh Singh Maghar Singh Gian Singh Chanchal Singh Bachan Singh Harbhajan Singh Karnail Singh Def.No.2 Malkiat Singh Ranjit Singh Def. No.1 Jashandeep Singh Plaintiff

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is grandson of defendant No.2. As plaintiff was minor at the time of filling of the suit, the same was instituted through his natural guardian i.e. through his mother Paramjit Kaur. Plaintiff had filed suit for declaration to the effect that the Sale Deed dated 20.05.2004 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of the suit land as described in the plaint total measuring 40K 5M is without legal necessity, null and void and in excess to the share of defendant No.2, and therefore, the sale is liable to be cancelled; with consequential relief of joint possession of said land; and permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from further alienating, transferring or disposing of any part of the suit property.

4. Vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.2009, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Baba Bakala had decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs holding that “the sale deed dated 20.5.2004 executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 qua the land in dispute is cancelled and the plaintiff is entitled for joint possession of the said land and defendant no.1 is restrained from further alienating the suit land in any manner” The suit was decreed primarily on the ground that the suit land was ancestral in nature.

5. However, the appeal filed by the defendants was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.2011 and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. Hence, the present Second Appeal by the plaintiff.

6. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that a bare perusal of pedigree table shows that the suit land was ancestral in nature. Therefore, it was not open to Bachan Singh, grandfather of the plaintiff to dispose of the suit land by way of the impugned Sale Deed dated 20.05.2004 executed by him in favour of defendant No.1. It is submitted that the findings of learned first Appellate Court to the contrary are against the evidence on record.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that finding of the Ld. Lower Appellate Court in para No.20 of its judgment that Maghar Singh great grand father of the appellant has executed the Will in favour of his five sons i.e. Bachan Singh, Gian Singh, Chanchal Singh, Harbhajan Singh, and Karnail Singh, therefore, when Bachan Singh defendant No.2 acquired the property from his father Maghar Singh on the basis of said Will, the property which came into the hands Bachan Singh became un-ancestral property. It is contended that the aforesaid finding is completely illegal and arbitrary.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that great grand father of the appellant had also executed Gift Deed dated 11.6.1964 (Ex.D3), certified copy of which was Ex.D4 in favour of his five sons with regard to the property which comes him from his forefathers, so that no dispute could arise amongst the sons of Maghar Singh. It is submitted that mere execution of the Gift Deed would not lose the character of ancestral property.

9. It