RSA-958-1989 ( IN T 101
Manohar Singh a
Harbhajan Kaur a CORAM : HON Present: Mr. Ms. for t Resp Vide Mr. for L Mr. Mr. for r Resp vide Serv 28.0 Mr. for r Serv 20.0 *** AMARINDER S 1. The appellants-plainti 1989 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA RSA Res Pro Upl ingh and others Versus
Kaur and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate w Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants. Respondent No.4 stands deleted from Vide order dated 04.12.1995. Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for LRs of respondent No.5. Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate with Mr. Gurjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.6. Respondent No.7 stands deleted from vide order dated 08.05.2018. Service of respondent No.8 dispense 28.01.2026. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.9(i). Service of respondent No.9(ii) dispe 20.05.2024.
***

DER SINGH GREWAL, J. The instant regular second appe plaintiffs assailing the judgment and d - PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DIGARH
RSA No.958 of 1989 (O&M) Reserved on:04.05.2026
Pronounced on:13.05.2026 Uploaded on:14.05.2026
... Appellants
...Respondents
MARINDER SINGH GREWAL cate with ed from array of parties ocate with ed from array of parties spensed with vide order dated ) dispensed with vide order dated appeal has been preferred by t t and decree dated 13.09.1985 passed
by the assed by PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.14 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-958-1989 ( the learned Sub J trial Court) whe judgment and de Judge, Jalandhar whereby the app judgment and de objections prefe allowed. 2. For their status befor 3. Brie of the Punjab La year 1977–78 rel 251, 252, 255, co 149, 171, 226, 50 No.113/256, com 138 kanals and 3 further sought a d entitled to 1/12 his transferee, b deduction of 63 defendant No.1, a 4. The the land holding and Achhar Sing 1989 (O&M) -2- Sub Judge, IInd Class, Jalandhar (he t) whereby the suit preferred by the and decree dated 14.12.1988 passed b andhar (hereinafter referred to as t he appeal instituted by the appellan and decree of the learned trial Court preferred by respondent Nos.5 and For the sake of convenience, the par before the trial court. Briefly put, the appellants-plaintiffs jab Land Revenue Act, 1887 seeking c 78 relating to village Nagra in respec 255, comprising Khasra Nos.65, 66, 1 226, 500, 249 and 223, measuring 100 6, comprising Khasra Nos.148, 150, 34 and 3 marlas, total measuring 239 k ght a declaration that each of the plain 1/12th share, aggregating to 2/3rd shar ree, be reflected as co-owners to the of 63 kanals and 16 marlas already 1, and the revenue record be correc The suit property is part of estate of lding of 240 kanals. His estate was i ingh in equal shares. Surein Singh - ar (hereinafter referred to as the learn by them was dismissed as well as t assed by the learned Additional Distr o as the learned 1st Appellate Cou pellants-plaintiffs against the aforesa ourt was dismissed, whereas the cro .5 and 6/defendant Nos.1 and 2 we the parties shall be referred to in terms intiffs instituted a suit under Section eking correction of the jamabandi for t respect of Khata No.112/250, 253, 25 , 66, 161, 170, 222, 224, 225, 172, 14 ng 100 kanals and 18 marlas, and Kha 150, 349/2, 350, 493 and 494, measuri 239 kanals and 1 marla. The plainti e plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 w share, while defendants No.1 2, bei to the extent of 1/3rd share, subject lready purchased by the plaintiffs fro corrected accordingly. tate of Battan Singh, who was owner was inherited by his sons Surein Sin Singh became owner of half share whi e learned ll as the l District e Court) aforesaid he cross- 2 were terms of ction 45 di for the 53, 254, 147, nd Khata easuring plaintiffs to 5 was , being ubject to iffs from er of in Singh re which PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.14 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-958-1989 ( after his death w widow-defendan the ratio of 1/18 inherited by Sm inherited by Ach Singh, husband o share in the land As per the sha sanctioned on 2 appeal which wa Court. Thereaft No.340 of 1963 plaintiffs and oth decree, Mutatio 14.01.1966. It playing fraud by Singh, as the alle alleged that out o of land to plainti kanals 2 marlas suffered a collus defendant No.2, cancellation of th kanals 18 marla 1989 (O&M) -3- eath was inherited by his six sons i.e. endant No.3 and his two daughters a 1/18th share each. After the death y Smt. Ralli, his widow. On the de y Achhar Kaur and Surein Singh, who band of Smt. Ralli. In this manner, Su e land in dispute and Smt. Achhar Kau e share of Surein Singh and Acch on 26.02.63, against which defenda was dismissed on 06.05.63 with an ereafter, defendant No.1 approached 1963 wherein decree dated 13.09.19 nd other legal heirs of Surein Singh utation No.658 was sanctioned i It was further alleged that afores ud by defendant No.1 upon plaintiff he alleged decree dated 13.09.1964 w t out of his share of 153 kanals 6 marl plaintiffs vide sale deed dated 07.02.19 arlas of land. However, with a ma collusive decree Ex.D9/4 qua 119 k No.2, which was challenged by plain n of the same being void. Even defe marlas of land to plaintiffs, which - ns i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No.1, h arrayed as defendants No.4 and 5 death of Achhar Singh, his share w the death of Smt. Ralli, her share w who were sister and brother of Achh ner, Surein Singh became owner of 3/ ar Kaur became the owner of 1/4th sha Acchar Kaur, mutation No.419 w efendant No.1-Harbans Singh filed ith an observation to approach the Ci oached the Civil Court vide Civil S .09.1964 was passed in the absence Singh and in pursuance of the afore ed in favour of defendant No.1 aforesaid mutation was sanctioned laintiffs and other legal heirs of Sure 964 was not even traceable. It was al 6 marlas, he had sold 63 kanals 8 mar 7.02.1967, thus, having left with only a mala fide intention, defendant No 119 kanals in favour of his daught y plaintiffs vide a separate suit seeki n defendant No.1 also denied sale of hich compelled them to scrutinize t No.1, his 5, in hare was hare was chhar 3/4th share. 419 was filed an the Civil ivil Suit sence of esaid No.1 on ioned by f Surein was also 8 marlas only 15 ant No.1 aughter, t seeking ale of 63 inize the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.14 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-958-1989 ( revenue record an suit was institute 5. The written statement contended that a Will dated 31.12 which decree da sanctioned in h passed in the pre time of sanction revenue entries i in the year 1985 sale of 63 kanals transaction in ord Therefore, prayer 6. On t by the learned t “1. 2. W act a 3. W 4. W shar 5. W wha 1989 (O&M) -4- cord and on being found discrepancie stituted. The suit was contested by defendan tement; whereas defendant No.4 filed that after inheriting share of Acchar 31.12.1960 in favour defendant N ree dated 13.02.1964 was passed and his favour. It was further conten he presence of plaintiffs and other lega nctioning of mutation No.658, plain tries in various civil and partition sui 1985 is barred by limitation. Furtherm kanals 15 marlas of land by defendant in order to save the land from his son prayer for dismissal of the suit was so On the basis of pleadings of the par ned trial Court: “1. Whether the suit barred by the p 2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopp act and conduct? OPD 3. Whether the suit is barred by time 4. Whether the plaintiff and defenda share in the land in dispute? OPP 5. Whether the revenue record has what effect? OPP - es in the revenue entries, the prese fendants No.1 and 2 by filing comm filed separate written statement. It w cchar Singh, his widow Ralli, execut nt No.1-Harbans Singh on the basi and thereafter, mutation No.658 contended that the aforesaid decree w er legal heirs of Surein Singh and till t , plaintiffs were relying upon the sa on suits. Thus, filing of the present s urthermore, it was contended that alleg ndant No.1 to plaintiffs was only a sha is son, who wanted to alienate the sam as sought. he parties, following issues were fram the principle of res judicata? OPD topped to file the present suit by th time? OPD endants No.3 to 5 are entitled to 2/3 has been incorrectly prepared. If so present common t. It was executed is of was cree was d till the the said sent suit t alleged y a sham he same. e framed y their o 2/3rd If so to PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.14 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-958-1989 ( 6. W 6-A. awa 6-B. tran 7. R 7. The dismissed the su However, pleas o The Will dated 3 that the decree Harbans Singh o 02.08.1967 was was held to be bo 8. Agg issue of limitatio cross-objections 9. The 14.12.1988 affir limitation and he was further held defendant No.1 Ralli and, conseq deed dated 02.08 Appellate Court 1989 (O&M) -5- 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to A. Whether Ralli executed valid w away 120 Kanals of land in favour o B. Whether the sale deed dated transaction. If so its effect? OPD 7. Relief” The learned trial Court vide judgm the suit filed by the appellants-plaint pleas of res judicata and estoppel raise ated 31.12.1960 was held to be unpr ecree dated 13.02.1964 conferred o ingh only to the extent of 1/3rd sha was held to be a sham transaction, d bound by it. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants mitation, while respondent Nos.5 and ctions against the remaining findings. The learned 1st Appellate Court, affirmed the findings of the lear and held the suit filed by the appella r held that by virtue of the judgme No.1-Harbans Singh had been decla consequently, the suit was barred by 02.08.1967 pertaining to 63 kanals an Court held the same to be a sham tran - ed to the declaration prayed for? OP lid will dated 31.12.1960 bequeathim our of defendant No.1? OPD dated 8.2.67 is a benami and sha judgment and decree dated 13.09.198 plaintiffs as being barred by limitatio el raised by the defendants were rejecte e unproved, and it was further observ rred ownership upon defendant No share. Although the sale deed dat tion, defendant No.1, being the vend llants-plaintiffs preferred appeal on t 5 and 6/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 fil ings. ourt, vide judgment and decree dat learned trial Court on the issue ppellants-plaintiffs to be time barred. udgment and decree dated 13.09.196 declared owner of the entire estate red by res judicata. As regards the sa als and 18 marlas of land, the learned m transaction and observed that no va OPP athimg sham .09.1985, mitation. rejected. observed nt No.1- ed dated vendor, on the d 2 filed ee dated issue of arred. It 09.1964, estate of the sale arned 1st no valid PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.14 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-958-1989 ( title was passed the appellants- respondent Nos. filing of the prese 10. Mr. Sheoran, Advoc findings recorded argued that the c as they were no adjudication by t against Acchri on sum of Rs.5000/ upon the judgme Valluri Jaganna the alleged Will required to be d under which the involved not me rights, and, there mutation entries, 11. It w treating the reven dated 13.02.1964 them nor capable findings regardin 1989 (O&M) -6- assed in favour of the plaintiffs. Cons -plaintiffs was dismissed, whil t Nos. 5 and 6/defendant Nos. 1 and e present appeal. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior c Advocate appearing for the appella corded by the learned Courts below t the compromise decree dated 13.02. ere not parties thereto, and such a n by the Court, could not operate as only on the condition that defenda .5000/- to her and not against the pla dgment passed by the Hon’ble Suprem annadha Rao, AIR 1967 SC 591. I Will of Smt. Ralli remained unprov be determined in accordance with ch the plaintiffs claim inheritance righ ot merely correction of revenue en therefore, the question of limitation ntries, which by themselves neither cre was further submitted that the le e revenue entries as valid solely on th 2.1964, which according to the appe apable of operating as res judicata. La garding the sale deed dated 08.02.196 - . Consequently, the appeal preferred while the cross-objections filed 1 and 2 were allowed, which led to t ior counsel assisted by Ms. Anami appellants-plaintiffs submitted that t below are legally unsustainable. It w 13.02.1964 could not bind the plaintif uch a decree, not being the result te as res judicata. The suit was decre efendant No.1-Harbans Singh will pay the plaintiffs. Reliance has been plac Supreme Court in Pulavarthi Venkata . It was further contended that sin unproved, succession to her estate w with the Hindu Succession Act, 195 e rights. It was also argued that the s ue entries but assertion of inheritan itation could not be reckoned from t her create nor extinguish title. learned 1st Appellate Court erred on the basis of the compromise decr e appellants, was neither binding up Lastly, challenge has been laid to t .02.1967, contending that in the absen ferred by filed by to the Anamika that the It was laintiffs, result of decreed ill pay a n placed kata v. hat since tate was ct, 1956, t the suit heritance from the erred in e decree ing upon aid to the absence PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.14 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-958-1989 ( of any proceedin Article 59 of the sham transaction 12. Per submitted that th well as docume reasoned and cal that the suit, inst 14.01.1966, is ho Act, 1963, partic much prior there 13.02.1964, on t upon the parties a said decree or mu It was further co sham transaction has been placed Girdawari entries land continued alleged sale trans exclusive right o to prove issues N evidence in supp reserving the ri submissions, rel 1989 (O&M) -7- ceedings seeking its cancellation with of the Limitation Act, 1963, the sam action. Per contra, learned counsel for th that the learned 1st Appellate Court h ocumentary evidence on record, and nd call for no interference in the pre it, instituted on 17.05.1983 challengin , is hopelessly barred by limitation u particularly when the plaintiffs had r thereto. It was further submitted th , on the basis of which mutation No arties and operates as res judicata. In t or mutation, the consequential jamab her contended that the alleged sale de action, executed without consideratio placed upon the testimony of PW entries Ex. D9/23 and Ex. D9/24 to c nued with defendant No.1-Harbans e transaction was never given effect to ight on the basis of the said sale deed. sues No.4, 5 and 6 upon the plaintiffs, support of their case and evidence wa the right during initial stage of tr s, reliance was placed upon the ju - n within the limitation prescribed und he same could not have been termed for the respondents No.5, 6 and ourt has rightly appreciated the oral d, and the findings recorded are w he present appeal. It was further argu nging mutation No.658 sanctioned ation under Article 58 of the Limitati s had knowledge of the revenue entr tted that the judgment and decree dat ion No. 658 was sanctioned, is bindi n the absence of any challenge to t amabandi entries cannot be questione ale deed dated 08.02.1967 (Ex.P-1) is eration and never acted upon. Relian PW-1 Ajit Singh as well as Khas 24 to contend that possession of the s rbans Singh, thereby showing that t ffect to. Plaintiffs had never asserted a deed. Moreover, despite being the on intiffs, they failed to lead any affirmati nce was led in rebuttal without explici of trial. In support of the aforesa the judgments passed by the Hon’b ed under termed a 9(i) e oral as are well r argued ioned on imitation e entries ee dated binding ge to the estioned. 1) is a Reliance Khasra f the suit that the erted any the onus firmative xplicitly aforesaid on’ble PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.14 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-958-1989 ( Supreme Court in and Smt. Ganga judgments passe Harbhajan Sing Khetan and othe 13. I ha book as well as c 14. The barred by limitati in favour of the the said judgm defendants No.1 remaining issues held the suit to b the finding of th learned Courts b on the basis of flowing therefrom on the said reven before the Assi withdrawn subse kanals 14 marlas clearly recited th jamabandi for th reflected accordi 1989 (O&M) -8- ourt in Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kum angabai v. Smt. Chhabubai 1982 (1 passed by Coordinate Benches of Singh 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 21; others 2024 NCPHHC 150176. I have heard learned counsel for b ll as case laws cited with their able ass he learned trial Court, while decid imitation, having been instituted long f the plaintiffs, and consequently dism judgment and decree, the plaintiff No.1 and 2 filed cross-objections ass issues. The learned 1st Appellate Cou it to be barred by the principle of res j of the learned trial Court on limita urts below reveals that mutation No. is of judgment and decree dated 13. erefrom continued to be reflected in t revenue entries, plaintiff No.5 move Assistant Collector, Jalandhar on subsequently on 26.05.1983. Even marlas of land vide mortgage Ex.D9/2 ited that he was owner of 1/18th share o for the year 1967-68 in which shar ccording to the mutation dated 14.01. - Kumar and others (2022) 18 SCC 4 82 (1) RCR (Rent) 384 as well as t hes of this Court in Piara Singh ; Vijaya Mittal and others Vs. A for both parties and perused the pap ble assistance. deciding Issue No.3, held the suit to long after accrual of the cause of acti tly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved again aintiffs preferred an appeal, where ns assailing the findings returned on t te Court, upon reappraisal of the reco res judicata and concurrently affirm limitation. A perusal of the records n No.658 was sanctioned on 14.01.19 ed 13.02.1964, and the revenue entr ed in the subsequent jamabandis. Bas moved an application seeking partiti ar on 26.09.1975 but the same w Even plaintiff No.5 mortgaged his x.D9/2 dated 19.06.1969 wherein it w share of the total land and referred to t are of defendant No.1 was clea 14.01.1966. Plaintiffs had also pledg CC 489 ll as the ngh v. s. Anil he paper uit to be of action d against whereas d on the e record, affirmed cords of .01.1966 e entries Based partition me was ed his 7 in it was ed to the s clearly pledged PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.14 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-958-1989 ( their land on the below have right dated 13.09.1964 17.05.1983, after suit is barred by limitation as pres 15. The dated 08.02.196 payment of sale PW-1 Ajit Singh D9/24, clearly s No.1-Harbans Si also never assert never made an at deed was execut record that despi failed to lead co Court finds meri the judgment an mutation was san In the absence of period of limitati the present suit a belated stage. 1989 (O&M) -9- on the basis of aforesaid revenue entri e rightly held that plaintiffs had the k 9.1964. The present suit came to be i , after an unexplained lapse of about 1 red by limitation calls for no interfe prescribed under Article 58 of Limit he learned 1st Appellate Court has 2.1967 to be a sham transaction. T f sale consideration or delivery of po Singh, read along with Khasra Gird arly shows that possession of the su ans Singh and the alleged sale deed w asserted any exclusive right on the b e an attempt to get enforced their righ executed by defendant No.1 in their f despite being the onus to prove mater ead cogent affirmative evidence in su s merit in the conclusion drawn by th ent and decree dated 13.02.1964, on as sanctioned, is binding upon the pa nce of any challenge to the said decree imitation, the plaintiffs could not seek t suit as well as correction of the conse - e entries. Thus, both the learned Cou the knowledge of judgment and decr to be instituted by the plaintiffs only about 17 years. Thus, the finding that t interference, as the same is barred f Limitation Act, 1963. urt has rightly held the sale deed Ex. tion. The plaintiffs failed to establi of possession. Rather, the testimony a Girdawari entries Ex. D9/23 and E the suit land continued with defenda eed was never acted upon. The plainti the basis of the said document. Th ir right to possession, had any valid sa their favour. It is also evident from t material issues upon the plaintiffs, th in support of their case. Further, th by the learned 1st Appellate Court th 4, on the basis of which the aforesa parties and operates as res judica decree or to mutation No.658 within t seek declaration of the same as void e consequential revenue entries at such d Courts d decree only on that the arred by d Ex.P-1 establish imony of and Ex. efendant plaintiffs They alid sale from the iffs, they ther, this ourt that aforesaid dicata. ithin the s void in at such a PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.14 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-958-1989 ( 16. In v Pankajakshi (De and others (201 (2019) 17 SCC Singh (dead) thr law are not requi High Court whos Punjab Courts Ac 17. As judgment and dec and the finding r and decree dated second appeal is 18. Pend May 13, 2026 Pankaj* 1989 (O&M) -10 In view of the judgments passed b i (Dead) through Legal Represent (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur V CC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dea ) through LRs and others (2023) S t required to be framed in second appe t whose jurisdiction is circumscribed urts Act, 1918. As an upshot, this Court finds no nd decree dated 14.12.1988 passed by ding rendered by the learned trial Co dated 13.09.1985 and the same are eal is dismissed. Pending misc. application, if any, als (AM Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 10- ssed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court sentatives and others Vs. Chandri aur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and othe (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurchar 23) SCC Online SC 875, questions d appeal before the Punjab and Harya ribed by provisions of Section 41 of t nds no illegality and perversity in t sed by the learned 1st Appellate Court rial Court on issue No.3 vide judgme are upheld. Consequently, the regu ny, also stands disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE ned : Yes/No : Yes/No Court in ndrika others charan stions of Haryana 41 of the y in the Court as udgment e regular EWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.14 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh