IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.10.2025 Raj Karni (since deceased) through LRs and another …Appellants Versus Tarsem Lal and another …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate, for the appellants.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

This is plaintiffs’ appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridkot, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, vide which the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit declaration that they are co-sharers in possession of 2/4^th share in house built on 751/2 square having Municipal No. X/9 situated in Balbir Basti, Main Road, Faridkot (fully detailed in the plaint) [hereinafter referred to as `the suit property’] and the alleged sale deed dated 12.12.2007 registered on 13.12.2007 was not binding on their rights, being fictitious and procured with misrepresentation and thus, liable to be set aside. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the said share of the plaintiffs, in any manner by way of mortgage, sale, lease, transfer etc., was also sought.

4. It was claimed that the suit property was owned by one Hans Raj, predecessor-in-interest of the parties. After his death, the plaintiffs and their brother Mangat Ram, jointly became owners in possession of the said property. It was further asserted that Mangat Ram along with his sons (defendants) came with a proposal to obtain a loan from the Bank and at that time, plaintiff No.2 Darshan Lal also came to meet plaintiff No.1 and keeping in view the close relations between the parties, a document was executed to get the bank loan to the tune of Rs.1.25 lakh and under the said pretext, the defendants got executed a document of transfer from the plaintiffs. However, the said document was executed without any consideration and hence, the defendants had no proprietary rights whatsoever, in the suit property. The defendants had got the sale deed prepared from the plaintiffs under the misrepresentation of obtaining a loan from the bank. The said sale deed was termed to be the result of a fraud by the defendants.

5. The defendants filed their written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus-standi and the suit not being properly valued for the purpose of Court fee. On merits, the factum of the suit property previously owned by Hans Raj (predecessor-in-interest of the parties) and post his death, the same having been inherited by the plaintiffs and his three sons, was admitted. It was, however, asserted that as a result of the family settlement, the property fallen to the share of the plaintiffs had been sold to the defendants vide sale deed dated 12.12.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-. The allegations of fraud and the sale deed being without any consideration, were denied.

6. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the sale deed dated 12.02.2007 got executed by defendants from the plaintiffs by playing fraud and misrepresentation of facts and is not binding upon the rights of plaintiff in the suit property and is liable to be set aside, as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 stands proved in favour of plaintiffs, whether he is entitled to the relief of declaration? OPP

3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether suit of plaintiffs for mere declaration is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

6. Relief.

7. Parties led their respective evidence.

8. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 24.01.2024. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismi