IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (227)

Reserved on :- 08.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement:- 17.04.2026 Uploaded on:- 17.04.2026 BASAU RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR … Appellant Versus RAM KUMAR ... Respondent ****

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

Mr. Lokendra Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Nitin Verma, Advocate, Mr. Yash Lobra, Advocate, Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate for the respondent.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (for short, “RSA”) has been instituted by the appellant–plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent–defendant came to be allowed and, consequently, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Tohana, stood reversed.

2. The factual matrix of the case, as set out in the plaint, may briefly be delineated as under: the appellant–plaintiff claims ownership over the suit land on the premise that the respondent–defendant, namely Ram Kumar, being the owner in possession thereof, had expressed his intention to alienate the same. It is pleaded that, in order to circumvent any claim of pre-emption, the parties entered into a perpetual lease deed dated

20.10.1986.

3. It is further the case of the appellant–plaintiff that, pursuant to ₹ ₹

the said arrangement, a sum of 9,500/- was paid, and an annuity of 10/- was fixed as rent. It was allegedly agreed between the parties that the appellant–plaintiff, along with his successors, would continue to hold and enjoy the suit land from generation to generation, and that the respondent– defendant would have no subsisting claim, right, or interest in the same thereafter.

4. It is further pleaded that the respondent–defendant Ram Kumar, at the instance of the appellant–plaintiff, executed both a Special Power of Attorney and a General Power of Attorney in favour of Mukhtiar Singh for the purposes of effecting mutation and facilitating registration of the sale in favour of the appellant–plaintiff. However, the respondent– defendant subsequently revoked the said powers of attorneys. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant–plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the suit land and is entitled to have the mutation sanctioned in his favour. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought, restraining the respondent– defendant from interfering with the possession of the appellant–plaintiff or from alienating the suit land in any manner.

4.1. The respondent–defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein it was asserted that the alleged lease deed was not perpetual in nature but was, in fact, executed for a limited period of five years, and upon the expiry of the said period, the respondent–

defendant became entitled to resume possession of the suit land.

5. The appellant–plaintiff filed a replication, wherein the assertions and objections raised in the written statement were categorically denied, while the averments made in the plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed. Upon a comprehensive and careful scrutiny of the pleadings on record, coupled with the rival contentions advanced by the parties, the learned Trial Court deemed it appropriate to crystallize the matters in controversy and, for the purposes of a systematic and legally coherent adjudication, proceeded to frame the following issues for determination:–

1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner in possession of the suit land detailed and described in the heading of the plaint on the basis of document dt. 20.10.1986?OPP

2. If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the suit land mutated in his favour? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file this suit? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and