1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 11.02.2026 Pronounced on : 07.04.2026 BALKAR SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS AVTAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Adish Jain, Advocate for Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for appellant.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

Present regular second appeal has been preferred by appellant-

plaintiff for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2015 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nakodar and judgment and decree dated 15.09.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.

2. Appellant-plaintiff in his suit for declaration had claimed that he is owner in possession of land measuring 29 kanals 04 marlas being 1/7th share of total agricultural land measuring 206 kanals and 03 marlas, fully described in plaint, situated in area of village Akbarpur, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar. Appellant-plaintiff had also sought declaration that judgment and decree dated 22.02.1983 passed by Court of learned Sub- Judge First Class, Nakodar in Suit No.253 of 1983 titled as Gurjinder Singh Vs. Avtar Singh and judgment and decree dated 25.03.1995 passed by learned Sub-Judge (Second Class), Nakodar in Civil Suit No.543 of 1994 Gurjinder Singh and Others Vs. Joginder Kaur as well as Mutations bearing No.1014 and 1104 are illegal, void, ab initio and not binding upon the rights of the appellant-plaintiff. Appellant-plaintiff had also sought declaration to the effect that sale deeds dated 17.03.2009 and 20.03.2009, allegedly executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.7, 8, and 9 are without consideration and legal necessity and therefore, are illegal, unlawful, null, void and ab initio and mutations No.1181 and 1182, sanctioned on the basis of above sale deeds are liable to cancelled and set aside. Appellant- plaintiff further sought relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.2 and 7 to 9 from alienating suit property and claimed joint possession. It was the case of appellant-plaintiff that suit land was possessed by Bhola Singh and after his death, Harbans Singh got 1/3rd share and defendant No.1 got remaining 2/3rd share on the basis of oral Will and on the basis of that Will mutation No.964 was sanctioned. It was further asserted that defendant No.1-father of appellant-plaintiff, transferred his share in favour of defendant No.2 vide judgment and decree dated 22.02.1983 passed in Civil Suit No.253 of 1983, whereby 61 kanals 06 marlas was transferred and mutation No.1014 was wrongly entered in favour of defendant No.2. It was further claimed that suit land was joint, co-parcenary, joint Hindu family property and appellant-plaintiff, being co-parcener, has legal right over the property by virtue of his birth. It was also asserted that even the sale deed made in favor of defendants No.7 to 9 and mutation No.1181 and 1182 pertaining to said sale were illegal as same were made without there being any legal necessity. Defendant No.1 has no right to sell land in his hand being Karta of co-parcenary property. Appellant-plaintiff accordingly sought declaration that judgments and decrees dated 22.02.1983 & 25.03.1995, sale deeds dated 17.03.2009 & 20.3.2009 and consequent mutations bearing No.1014, 1104, 1181 and 1182 are not binding on his rights.

3. Defendants No.1 to 3, 4 and 6 to 9 had contested the suit by filing written statements, wherein they raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of suit, cause of action and locus standi. It was asserted that property was not ancestral, co-parcenary and joint Hindu Family Property and was exclusive property of defendant No.1, who was was within his right to suffer decrees as well as execute sale deeds. It was further asserted that appellant-plaintiff has got no right over the suit property and he is neither owner nor in possession of the property. Defendant No.9 claimed himself to be bona fide purchaser of t