IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :- 08.12.2025 Khanzani Devi @ Sajani and others … Appellants Versus Nav Bharat and others ... Respondents ****

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

Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate with Ms. Prerna Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Kuldeep Khandelwal, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .(Oral)

1. The appellants/defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Jind whereby the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 09.03.1992 of the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Narwana was unjustifiably overturned, most respectfully invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal (for short “RSA”). The appellants seek restoration of the decree rightly granted by the Trial Court and appropriate redress for the substantial miscarriage of justice that has resulted.

1.1. It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are vitiated by manifest perversity, substantial errors of law, and a fundamentally flawed appreciation of the evidentiary record, culminating in a grave miscarriage of justice. The appellants therefore earnestly pray that this Court be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and to reinstate the lawful and well-reasoned decree rendered by the learned Trial Court.

2. The circumstances precipitating the present appeal may be succinctly stated thus:-

“Respondent Basau, father of the appellant Nav Bharat, was a substantial Biswedar holding exclusively ancestral property, over which he lacked authority to alienate except for legal necessity. However, being habitually intoxicated, of dissolute habits, and a confirmed spendthrift, he effected several alienations while under the influence of liquor and without any necessity for the estate.

He mortgaged 48 kanals (960/7500 share of 75 kanals 9 marlas)

to Respondents 1, 2, and 2A for ₹42,000 vide Mortgage Deed No. 2788 dated 1.1.1985, and another 40 kanals (800/7509 share of 375 kanals 9 marlas) to Respondents 3 and 4 for ₹35,000 by Mortgage Deed No. 794 dated 14.6.1985. He thereafter executed a 99-year lease of 42 kanals 7 marlas in favour of Respondent 5 and the predecessors of Respondents 7 and 8 for ₹20,000. Finally, he sold 84 kanals 5 marlas, as per Jamabandi 1980-81, to Respondents 9 to 13 for ₹2,63,281.25 through Sale Deed No. 67 dated 9.4.1987.

Alleging that these transactions were wholly without legal necessity and detrimental to the ancestral estate, the appellant instituted the suit leading to this appeal seeking a declaration that the mortgage deeds, lease deed, and sale deed are illegal, void, and non-binding on his coparcenary rights. Hence the suit.”

3. Upon issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and submitted three distinct sets of written statements. Respondents 1, 2, and 2-A contended that Basau was of sound character and that the mortgages were executed for bona fide legal necessity, with genuine consideration duly paid, including at the time of the challenged sale deed.

3.1. Respondents 3 to 13 adopted the same defence, asserting that the mortgages, lease, and sale were all for legal necessity and beneficial to the estate. They further claimed that the property was Basau’s self-acquired land and that the consideration was used to discharge bank loans and redeem earlier mortgages.

3.2. Respondent Basau aligned himself with the other respondents, denied the appellant’s allegations, and reiterated that the land was his self- acquired property acquired prior to the appellant’s birth. He further pleaded that the suit was undervalued, not maintainable, suffered from misjoinder of causes of action, lacked cause of action, and was barred by res-judicata.

4. Upon a careful scrutiny of the pleadings, documents, and submissions of both sides, the Court proceeded to frame the following issues for adjud