110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 GURVINDER KAUR ....Appellant Versus SURINDER PAWAR AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present regular second appeal has been preferred by appellant/defendant No.5 being aggrieved by impugned judgment and decree dated 26.04.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karnal whereby suit preferred by respondents/plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they are owners of 2445/4080 share out of total land measuring 204 kanal 4 marlas as detailed in plaint and mutation entries bearing Nos.990 and 991 are illegal, void and not binding upon the rights of plaintiffs in view of provisions of Section 15(1) and Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and sale deed executed by appellant/defendant No.5 in favour of respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 with respect to entire land is nullity qua the share of respondents/plaintiffs, was decreed. The judgment and decree dated 26.04.2016, was duly challenged in appeal by defendants No.1 to 4, wherein appellant/defendant No.5 had filed cross-objections which were also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16.05.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. Appellant/defendant No.5 is aggrieved by the above said impugned judgments and decrees and has claimed the suit property.

2. It was the case of respondents/plaintiffs that Bakha Singh and his first wife i.e. Jasbir Kaur were recorded owners of land to the extent of one half share each as mentioned in para No.4 of the plaint. After death of Jasbir Kaur, Bakha Singh performed second marriage with respondent/ plaintiff No.1 and out of the said wedlock respondents/plaintiffs No.2 to 4 were born. Bakha Singh had died on 17.03.2001 and as per law, respondents/plaintiffs No.1 to 4 became owners of 2445/4080 share in the land measuring 204 kanals 0 marla. It was averred that appellant/defendant No.5 had sold the entire land in favour of respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 vide sale deed dated 07.12.2007 for a fictitious consideration of Rs.1,02,00,000/-. It was claimed that the said sale deed is a void document and respondents/plaintiffs continued to be the owners of suit land. It was asserted that mutation of land was wrongly entered in favour of appellant/defendant No.5, instead of respondents/plaintiffs who are legal heirs of deceased Bakha Singh.

3. Defendants No.1 to 4 took preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the suit and claimed themselves to be bona fide purchasers for consideration as they had duly inquired about the right, title or interest of appellant/defendant No.5 in the suit land. It was asserted that after the death of Jasbir Kaur Mutation No.990 was rightly sanctioned in favour of appellant/defendant No.5 as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956. On inquiry from appellant/defendant No.5 regarding the second marriage of Bakha Singh, she had informed that no such marriage has ever been performed by him and no issue was born out of the said marriage, thereafter, upon death of Bakha Singh on 17.03.2001, mutation regarding his estate was duly sanctioned in favour of appellant/defendant No.5. It was averred that defendants No.1 to 4 had purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 07.12.2007 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,02,00,000/-. Accordingly, dismissal of suit was prayed for.

4. Appellant/defendant No.5 also took similar preliminary objection regarding maintainability of suit. It was asserted that objections under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 read with Section 151 CPC, 1908 on similar grounds are pending adjudication in the Court of M.S. Rajni Kaushal, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karnal. Respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 claimed that after death of Jasbir Kaur, her estate was mutated in favour of appellant/defendant No.5 and she had accordingly sold the same vide regist