##PAGE1##

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(113)

RSA-1336-2026(O&M)

Reserved on : 09.04.2026

Pronounced on : 21.04.2026

Uploaded on : 23.04.2026

Harmander Singh

……Appellant

Versus

Veerpal Kaur

……Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

****

Present: Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate,

for the appellant.

****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant before this court, challenging the

judgment and decree dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned trial court

dismissing his suit for declaration and the judgment and decree dated

08.10.2025 passed by the learned First Appellate Court vide which the

appeal preferred by him against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed

by the learned trial court, has also been dismissed.

1.1 For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in

terms of their status before the trial court.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the

owner in possession of the suit property. Owing to financial necessity, the

plaintiff approached one Ashok Kumar for the sale of his land. Ashok

Kumar, acting on behalf of the plaintiff, negotiated with Yadwinder Singh,

-1-

SHUBHAM

2026.04.23 11:09

I am the author of this

document

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)

who is the husband of the defendant. Consequently, the sale consideration

was settled at ₹19,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, a sum of ₹2,50,000/-

was allegedly paid by Yadwinder Singh to the plaintiff through Ashok

Kumar. Thereafter, a sale deed bearing No. 4328 dated 15.07.2016 was

executed in favour of the defendant. However, it is the case of the plaintiff

that the remaining sale consideration was never paid. The defendant and her

husband allegedly assured that the balance amount would be paid after

reaching home, but they failed to honour the said commitment. Despite

repeated requests and approaches made by the plaintiff to both Ashok

Kumar and the defendant, the balance sale consideration was not paid. It is

further alleged that Ashok Kumar, in collusion with the defendant, got a

false criminal case registered against the plaintiff and his mother. The

plaintiff asserts that the aforementioned sale deed is the result of fraud and

misrepresentation and is without lawful consideration. It is also contended

that the actual market value of the suit property was in crores of rupees,

whereas the sale deed reflects a meagre value of ₹8,19,000/-, thereby

indicating that the transaction was merely a paper transaction without any

real intent to transfer ownership. The plaintiff further maintains that he

continues to be in possession of the suit property and that no possession

was ever delivered to the defendant pursuant to the alleged sale deed. On

these grounds, it is prayed that sale deed No. 4328 dated 15.07.2016 and the

consequent mutation No. 4860 be declared null and void and liable to be set

aside. It is also alleged that the defendant has been making attempts to

forcibly dispossess the plaintiff, which were thwarted due to the

-2-

SHUBHAM

2026.04.23 11:09

I am the author of this

document

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)

intervention of respectable persons of the locality. Subsequently, the

plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration.

3. Upon notice, the defendant appeared and filed his written

statement contesting the suit, raising various preliminary objections. The

plaintiff filed a replication denying the contents of the written statement and

reiterating the averments made in the plaint.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following

issues were framed:

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

OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction