IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.07.2025 Jagdish Singh and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Waryam Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Kartikeya Swaroop, Advocate for the appellants.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration, to the effect that suit land measuring 21 Kanals 3 Marlas as described in the head note of the plaint is Shamlat Deh and belongs to the residents of the village and any sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants by any person in regard to the suit property, are illegal, void, in-effective, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that although the present appeal is of the year 2019, notice has not yet been issued. In fact, appeal has been dismissed once for non-prosecution on 28.09.2022 due to non-appearance on behalf of the appellants. However, the same was restored thereafter on 24.07.2023.

3. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land was donated by worshippers of the village including forefathers of the plaintiffs to the Gram Panchayat of the village. Thus, suit land was Shamlat Deh. Even in revenue record, suit land was shown as Shamlat Deh. As such nobody had right to sell the suit property as the same is to be used for the welfare and common purpose of villagers. As such, sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants were illegal, null and void. With these assertions, the appellant had filed the suit on 24.1.2008, seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that the suit land is 'Shamlat Deh' belonging to “residents of village and sale deeds, executed in favour of the defendants by any persons with regard to the suit property are illegal, void in-effective and by way of impersonation of the plaintiffs or any other competent person thus are not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs being owners in possession thus are liable to be set aside in the alternative suit for possession of the same.”

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants by submitting that the suit land was not Shamlat Deh. It was further submitted that if assertion of the plaintiffs is accepted in regard to nature of the land, then jurisdiction of civil court is barred. As such, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial court on 19.09.2011: -

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

OPP.

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

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

4. Whether his court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD.

5. Whether suit is not within limitation?OPD.

6. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties?OPD.

7. Relief.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, and evidence produced by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mukerian, had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.2014. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.2019.

Hence, present second appeal by the plaintiffs.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that forefathers of the plaintiffs and other worshippers of the village had donated suit land whereafter suit land became Shamlat Deh to be used for the villagers. Even in the revenue record, suit land is recorded as Shamlat Deh. However, to the utter surprise of the plaintiffs, it came to their knowledge that defendants were claiming themselves to be owners of the suit property on the basis of some Sale Deed. It came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that by using the impersonator as Lal Chand Veragi, who was forefather of the plaintif