Judgment Reserved On: 20.06.2025 Judgment Pronounced On: 26.06.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No.64 of 2025 Tirla Devi & Others …Appellants Versus Sukhbir & Others …Respondents -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate for the caveator/respondents -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Shri Justice Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Present second appeal is preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2023 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar in O.S. No.73 of 2013 “Smt. Tirla Devi vs. Sukhbir and another” and the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2025 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Appeal No.25 of 2023, whereby the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.01.2013 was dismissed and the appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs claim ownership over the suit property, Khasra No. 129, area 0.2650 hectares, situated at Village Khijarpur Kalanjara, Tehsil and District Haridwar on the basis of a registered Will executed in their favour by their mother Smt. Chandrabalia. They allege that the respondents/ defendants were attempting to interfere with their peaceful possession, therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs filed O.S. No.357 of 2012 against the respondents /defendants seeking a decree of perpetual injunction.

3. Thereafter, appellants/plaintiffs filed another O.S. No.73 of 2013 “Smt. Tirla Devi and others v. Sukhbir and others” for cancellation of Sale Deed dated 14.01.2013, executed by respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos.1 and 2 in favour of respondent no.3/defendant no.3.

4. Learned Trial Court clubbed both the suits vide order dated 05.03.2020 and the O.S. No.357 of 2012 was made the leading case. In the leading case, learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court recorded a finding that the suit property being agricultural land, the appellants/plaintiffs had to get their title decided by the competent revenue court and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant relief of perpetual injunction. In the case, where the sale deed was challenged, the appellants/plaintiffs contended that the same was void as the same was executed on 14.01.2013 when the stay order dated 24.12.2012 was in operation. The concurrent finding of fact as recorded by the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in relation to the issue of suit property and sale deed are as follows:-

The suit property, which is an agricultural land, originally belonged to Late Mool Chand and after his death, Dhoom Singh, being his son, was recorded as Bhumidhar in revenue records; after death of Dhoom Singh; in the year 1992 his mother Chandrabalia was recorded in revenue records in PK11, and on 09.12.2009, names of respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos.1 and 2 were mutated, however, the same was stayed on 24.12.2012, based on a restoration application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. The sale deed was executed by respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos.1 and 2 in favour of respondent no.3/defendant no.3 on 14.01.2013.

5. The appellants/plaintiffs contended that as the Will was executed on 02.05.2003 by their mother Chandrabalia in their favour as such after her death on

20.02.2008, they became the owners and possessor of the suit property. It was further contended that the names of respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos.1 and 2 was entered on 09.12.2009 and on a restoration application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs an order was passed on 24.12.2012, by which the order dated 09.12.2009 was stayed, as such after 24.12.2012, respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos.1 and 2 had no right on the suit property. Moreover, as the respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos.1 and 2 were aware of O.S. No.357 of 2012 as such the transfer was hit