IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment reserved on :06.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on 17.04.2026 RAM MEHAR ... APPELLANT VERSUS DARIYA SINGH ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: None for the appellant.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. RSA No. 1393 of 2002 was taken up along with RSA No. 1550 of 2002 as a connected matter. However, perusal of both the appeals, particularly RSA No. 1393 of 2002, shows that they involve different parties and arise out of distinct cause of action, though the part of land in dispute, i.e., Killa No. 23, in both the appeals is one and the same.

2. Present regular second appeal No. 1393 of 2002 has been preferred by the defendant–appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed. The plaintiff was held to be the owner in possession of suit land measuring 2 kanals 19 marlas, i.e., 1 kanal 3 marlas on the western side of Killa No. 2, rectangle No. 88, wrongly shown in the name of the defendant, and 1 kanal 16 marlas in Killa No. 23 of rectangle No. 70 already shown in the plaintiff’s name vide mutation No. 3233 on the basis of family partition. It was further held that incorrect entries in the revenue record would not be binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.01.2002, the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, whereby the suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction preferred by the plaintiff–respondent had been dismissed, was set aside.

3. It was the case of respondent–plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendant are real brothers and after the death of their father, plaintiff and defendant inherited the suit land in equal shares. It is asserted that out of the total land measuring 107 kanals 6 marlas both the plaintiff and defendant were entitled to 53 kanals 13 marlas each and accordingly mutation No. 3233 reflecting equal shares of plaintiff and defendant on the basis of a family settlement was entered and sanctioned. However, it was alleged that the defendant, being an educated ex-serviceman, defrauded the plaintiff and got larger area entered in his name to the extent of 1 kanal 3 marlas instead of 53 kanals 13 marlas. It was also asserted that the plaintiff was shown as owner in possession over 52 kanals 10 marlas only, whereas the defendant was shown as owner in possession over 54 kanals 16 marlas. It was further asserted that both parties were, in fact, in actual physical possession of their respective half shares. The plaintiff claimed that he came to know about the incorrect revenue entries only in the year 1993, when a false criminal case under Sections 323 and 325 IPC was lodged by the defendant against him and his sons. Thereafter when the plaintiff was released on bail, a Panchayat was convened and the matter was settled through a compromise dated 16.05.1993, which was duly signed/thumb- marked by both the parties. As per the compromise, both the parties were to retain equal shares and any excess land was to revert to the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the defendant, by playing fraud, obtained an ex parte judgment and decree from the Civil Court qua agricultural land measuring 1 kanal 16 marlas out of plaintiff’s Killa No. 23 without any service upon the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking declaration that the judgment and decree obtained by the defendant in respect of 1 kanal 16 marlas comprised in Killa No. 23, as well as the excess share of 1 kanal 3 marlas, is illegal, and that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land. It was also prayed that the wrong entries in the revenue record be declared not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant. The relationship between the parties and the fact th