(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

RSA No. 1473 of 1994(O&M)

Surja Ram (deceased)

Through his LRs & Anr.

. . . . Appellants Vs.

Prithvi Raj (deceased) Through his LRs & Ors.

. . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 04.12.2025 Pronounced on: 11.12.2025 Pronounced fully/ operative: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Argued by: - Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, (cid:1)

for the applicants-appellants. (cid:1)

Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate (cid:1)

For respondent No.1. (cid:1)

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate (cid:1)

For respondent No.2.(cid:1)

***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants, who are aggrieved by the reversal of the trial Court judgment. (cid:1)

2. The plaintiff, Prithvi Raj, had instituted a suit seeking decree of declaration that the joint Hindu family continued to be the owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 94 kanals 3 marlas situated in village Nihal Khera, Tehsil Fazilka, notwithstanding a decree dated 06.02.1987 suffered by his father, Mukh Ram, in favour of his brother Surja Ram. He also sought injunctions restraining the defendants from transferring the land or taking possession on the basis of the said decree and revenue partition proceedings. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 21.10.1992, but the First Appellate Court overturned the dismissal and decreed the suit on 26.04.1994. It is this reversal, which the defendants have challenged in the present appeal.(cid:1)

3. The relationship among the parties is undisputed. One Mukh Ram had three sons—Surja Ram, Pat Ram, and the plaintiff Prithvi Raj. The land in dispute stood in the name of Mukh Ram. The plaintiff asserted that the parties constituted a joint Hindu family and that the property, though in the name of the father, was ancestral coparcenary land. According to him, the decree dated 06.02.1987 in Civil Suit No. 648-1 of 1987, wherein Mukh Ram acknowledged one-half share in favour of Surja Ram, was collusive, contrary to legal necessity, and intended to deprive the plaintiff of his coparcenary interest.(cid:1)

4. On the other hand, the defendants pleaded that a family settlement had taken place much earlier under which each of the three sons received one-fourth share from the father, who retained one-fourth for himself. The plaintiff, according to them, received 23 kanals 11 marlas as his one-fourth share and later had a sale deed executed in his favour merely to formalize the family arrangement. The decree in favour of Surja Ram, they contended, only reflected the portion allotted to him under the family settlement, and therefore the plaintiff, having already taken his share, was not entitled to challenge the transaction.(cid:1)

5. The trial Court examined the evidence, including revenue records and consolidation papers, and observed that the land had originally been held by Har Krishan, father of Mukh Ram, as a maurusi tenant. Upon Har Krishan’s death, the maurusi rights devolved on Mukh Ram, who subsequently became owner in cultivating possession after proprietary rights were vested by operation of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. The trial Court accepted the oral admissions that the property was ancestral in nature and held it to be joint Hindu family property, but found on evidence that a family settlement had already been acted upon. It noted that each of the sons had been allotted one-fourth share; that the plaintiff had obtained a sale deed of his share without paying consideration; and that the decree in favour of Surja Ram reflected the father’s 1/4th share and the share already allotted to Surja Ram. In these circumstances, the trial Court held that the decree was neither fraudulent nor illegal and dismissed the suit.(cid:1)

6. However, the First Appellate Court took the opposite view. It held that no family settlement had taken place and that the decree dated 06.02.1987 was illegal because the property ha