IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

113

CR No.885 of 2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: 14.02.2023

Baldev Singh (deceased) through his LRs

....Petitioners

V/s

Darshan Singh and others

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:

Mr. Surjit Singh Salar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

***

VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral)

CM-2704-CII-2023

This is an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking

amendment in the head note of the revision petition.

For the reasons given in the application, which is supported by

affidavit, the same is allowed. The amended petition is taken on record.

Office to append the same at the appropriate place and re-arrange the

paper-book.

CM stands disposed of.

CR-885-2023

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, whereby challenge raised is to the order dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure P-5)

passed in the first appeal, vide which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC,

seeking amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the present petition

VIKAS CHANDER

2023.03.04 15:04

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-885-2023

-2-

are that the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner had filed the suit for declaration to the

effect that he is owner and in joint possession to the extent of shares mentioned in

the head note of the suit; and for declaration that the sale deed Nos.3288 and 3289

dated 29.02.2012, allegedly executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant

Nos.2 and 3, was illegal, null and void and has no effect on the rights of the

plaintiff and for injunction restraining defendant Nos.2 and 3 from interfering in

the peaceful and exclusive possession of the plaintiff.

It is pleaded that the suit land originally was owned by Gujjar Singh

son of Heera Singh, measuring 38 bighas, 2 biswas and ½ share in land measuring

50 bighas, 17 biswas as per Jamabandi for the year 1988-89. After the death of

Gujjar Singh, the suit property was inherited by 7 persons, i.e. the widow, three

sons and three daughters of Gujjar Singh. Thus, each legal heir inherited 1/7^th

share of the total holding of Gujjar Singh.

It is pleaded that the shares of the co-sharers were rightly recorded in

the jamabandi for the year 1988-1989 and subsequently wrong entries have been

recorded in the subsequent jamabandi for the year 1993-1994. Accordingly, the

shares of all the co-sharers were sought to be corrected.

Upon notice, the contesting defendants appeared and remaining

defendants were proceeded against ex parte. The contesting defendants have

resisted the suit on facts as well as the preliminary objections that the suit is not

maintainable. No cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff to file the suit and that

the same was beyond the period of limitation.

A specific stand was taken by the defendants that the plaintiff was

required to prove the shares as alleged by him and that all the revenue entries are

correctly mentioned. Ten separate sets of written statements by different

VIKAS CHANDER

2023.03.04 15:04

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-885-2023

-3-

defendants were filed. In each of the pleadings by the defendants, the averments

made in the plaint were denied and the suit was resisted. The issues were framed

and the parties led their evidence.

With regard to the respective shares, the trial Court after discussing

the evidence available on record, held as under:-

“…There were seven legal heirs of the estate of Gujjar

Singh including, his three sons, three daughters and his widow.

Each of them inherited to the extent of 1/7^th share of deceased

Gujjar Singh. The same has also been mentioned in the Jamabandi

for the year 1988-89 Ex.P23 as alleged by the plaintiff. But in the

subsequent