IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.761 of 2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.05.2025 Kewaljit Singh and others ....Appellants V/s Bhajan Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Ms. Rani S. Thakur, Advocate, for the appellants.

*****

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

Plaintiffs are in appeal against the judgment and decree dated

25.02.2020 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Moga, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2017 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Moga, vide which the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs were the owners in possession of land measuring 48 kanals 3 marlas in equal shares situated in the area of Kore Kalan, District Moga (fully described in the plaint) (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) and the alleged sale deeds dated 18.11.1996 (Vasika No.4888) and 19.11.1996 (Vasika No.4935) executed in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 by Nasib Kaur and subsequent mutations No.2695 and 2696 were null and void as the same were the result of fraud and misrepresentation. Alternatively, they sought joint possession of the suit property with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring, disposing of the suit property in any manner.

4. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are the sons of Nasib Kaur daughter of Ghumand Singh, who was the original owner in possession of the suit property and plaintiff No.4 (father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3) is the husband of Nasib Kaur. During the lifetime of Nasib Kaur, Nasib Kaur and plaintiffs used to receive rent of the suit property from defendant No.1 every year. Nasib Kaur died on 14.09.1998. Plaintiffs claimed that they being the Class I heirs of Nasib Kaur, complete share of the suit property devolved upon them in equal shares. On the demise of Nasib Kaur, the defendants also assured the plaintiffs that mutation of inheritance would be sanctioned in their favour. After the death of Nasib Kaur, defendants No.1 and 2 kept on paying rent of the suit property to the plaintiffs but they had not paid the second installment of rent from the year 2011-12 and eventually refused to pay the rent. Defendants further claimed that they had become owners of the suit property on the basis of sale deeds executed by Nasib Kaur in the year 1996. The factum of sale deeds having been executed in favour of the defendants by Nasib Kaur had never been disclosed to the plaintiffs by Nasib Kaur during her lifetime. The alleged sale deeds had been fabricated by impersonation. Nasib Kaur had never put her thumb impressions on the sale deeds. The alleged amount of consideration of Rs.6 lakhs was never brought by Nasib Kaur to the house nor she had deposited the same in the bank. Defendants No.1 and 2 had paid rent of the suit property to the plaintiffs even after the death of Nasib Kaur for 12 years. The witnesses to the sale deeds in question were strangers and were not the residents of Village Korewala or Sikhanwala. The basic stand taken was that the sale deeds dated 18.11.1996 and 19.11.1996 were the result of fraud and misrepresentation.

5. The suit was resisted by the defendants. Separate written statements were filed by all the defendants. In the written statements, preliminary objections regarding valuation, jurisdiction, cause of action, mis-joinder of parties etc. were raised. On merits, it was averred by defendants No.1 and 2 that sale deeds dated 18.11.1996 and 19.11.1996 were executed by Nasib Kaur, whose photograph appeared on both sale deeds. It was averred that land measuring 24 kanals 1/1/2 marlas was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.3 la