CR-2931-2022 (O&M)

1

120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-2931-2022 (O&M)

Date of Decision:16.08.2022

Ravinder Singh

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Gaurav and others

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

Present:

Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.S. Malik-I, Caveator

for the respondents.

...

Manoj Bajaj, J. (Oral)

Petitioner (plaintiff) has filed this revision petition to challenge

the order dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed in CMA/96/2021, by

Addl. District Judge, Rohtak, whereby it has partly allowed the petitioner's

appeal against the order dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by Civil

Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rohtak, thereby dismissing his application under Order

XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.

The facts in brief leading to the revision are that the plaintiff

filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and

mandatory injunction against defendants (respondents) and pleaded that his

father, namely, Tara Chand s/o Shri Mai Chand, who died on 20.07.1995,

was owner in possession of 1/2 share of the agricultural land comprised in

khewat No.19, khatoni No.256, Rect..& Killa No.25/11/2/2 (0-9), 19/2 (3-

2), 21/2/1 (7-12), 22/1 (7-16), 23/1 (7-16), 30/5/2 (4-0), 6(8-0), 14(7-7),

15(7-7), 16(8-0), 25(8-0), 31/1 (8-0), 2(8-0), 3(8-0), 7/2 (5-6), 8 (8-0), 9 (8-

JASMINE KAUR

2022.08.24 15:36

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-2931-2022 (O&M)

2

0), 10(8-0), 11(7-7), 12(7-7), 13(7-7), 14(7-7), 17(8-0), 18(8-0), 19(8-0),

20(8-0), 21(8-0), 22(8-0), 23(8-0), 56/1(8-0), 2(8-0), 3(8-0), 4(8-0), 57/5(8-

0), 73/2 (5-19), 3(8-0), 4(3-0), 8(6-2), 73/9(5-5), 12(3-11), 19(8-0), 22(8-3),

total kitte 22 total measuring 296 kanals 3 marlas, khatoni No.277, killa

No.31/24 (8-0), khatoni No.258, killa No.25/20/1/7-16 total measuring 311

kanals 19 marlas situated within the revenue of village Singhapura Kalan,

Tehsil and District Rohtak. His father had executed a registered Will on

02.08.1990, thereby bequeathing all his moveable and immovable properties

in favour of his sons i.e. Ravinder Singh (plaintiff) and Atul Kumar (now

deceased). The plaintiff was serving outside the village, who had requested

his brother to get the mutation sanctioned on the basis of the Will and

believed that the same was sanctioned, as both the brothers continued to

enjoy the property left behind by their father to the extent of half share each.

Plaintiff's brother Atul Kumar had died on 09.11.2020 and his

half share in the suit property devolved upon his three children and widow

(defendants No.1 to 4) to the extent of 1/8^th share each. Later, the plaintiff

returned back, and came to learn that his brother Atul Kumar had got the

mutation of the suit property sanctioned in favour of all the legal heirs of

Tara Chand, including his widow Swaroopvati (deceased), both the sons

and his daughters (defendants No.5 and 6) in equal shares, whereas the same

was to be done in accordance with the Will. The mother of the plaintiff,

namely, Swaroopvati further alienated her 1/5^th share in favour of defendant

No.1 Gaurav s/o Atul Kumar and in this regard, mutation No.1515 was also

sanctioned on 24.09.2015. According to the plaintiff, his brother Atul

Kumar played fraud upon him and dishonestly got the land mutated in

favour of all the legal heirs of Tara Chand, and prayed for a decree for

JASMINE KAUR

2022.08.24 15:36

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-2931-2022 (O&M)

3

declaration on the strength of the Will to claim half share in the suit

property and also challenged the mutation etc. Further, as a consequential

relief, decree for permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction was

also prayed.

Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules

1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was also filed for ad interim

injunction.

The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 4 and 6 by filing

joint written statement, wher