IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-607-1993 Smt. Karnail Kaur and Another . . . . Appellants Vs. Sh. Harnam Singh and Others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 18.03.2026 Pronounced on: 20.03.2026 Pronounced fully/opera5ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Omesh Garg, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Ms. Reema, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The plain)ffs are before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal, assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, whereby their suit for declara)on and consequen)al relief of possession in re- spect of the suit land was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.1988, and the appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court on 17.10.1992. 2. The record of the Courts below was summoned and perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the par)es. For the sake of convenience, the par)es are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3.1 Plainff’s Case : The case set up by the plain)ffs is that Bhagat Singh and Gurudev Singh were joint owners of land measuring 71 Kanal 5 Marla (Barani), and 17 Kanal 5 Marla (Chahi) situated in village Sahibana, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Upon the death of Gurudev Singh, his son Tehal Singh (defen- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.20 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-607-1993 dant N: 3) succeeded to his share. It is pleaded that in June, 1968, an oral par)- )on took place between Bhagat Singh and Tehal Singh in the presence of village respectables and Panchayat members, whereby they entered into separate pos- session of their respec)ve shares. According to the plain)ffs, in order to consoli- date holdings, Tehal Singh was allo@ed 45 Kanal 6 Marla of Barani land, whereas Bhagat Singh retained 25 Kanal 19 Marla of Barani land along with 17 Kanal 5 Marla of Chahi land, which forms the subject ma@er of the present dispute. 3.2 It is further pleaded that Bhagat Singh thereaBer exchanged his Barani land measuring 25 Kanal 19 Marla with Nirmal Singh son of Chuhar Singh and, in lieu thereof, acquired 21 Kanal 4 Marla of Chahi land adjoining his exist- ing holding. Consequently, Bhagat Singh is stated to have become owner in pos- session of 38 Kanal 9 Marla of Chahi land, including the suit land - 17 Kanal 5 Marla. However, the said oral par))on and exchange were never reflected in the revenue record. 3.3 ABer the death of Bhagat Singh, the plain)ffs, being his widow and son, succeeded to his estate. In the mean)me, Tehal Singh sold half land to Pri- tam Singh son of Nahar Singh vide sale deed dated 07.06.1978 and delivered possession of 45K - 6M of Barani land, who in turn exchanged the same with Darshan Singh (defendant No.2). It is the case of the plain)ffs that Darshan Singh never came into possession of the suit land. 3.4 However, Darshan Singh executed an agreement to sell dated 07.01.1980 in favour of defendant No.1 Harnam Singh in respect of half share of the suit land. Apprehending dispossession, the plain)ffs ins)tuted a suit for per- manent injunc)on in the year 1980. During the pendency of that suit, Darshan Singh executed a sale deed dated 22.12.1980 in favour of Harnam Singh. In the said proceedings, Harnam Singh made a statement admiEng the possession of the plain)ffs, and on the basis of his undertaking, the suit was disposed of. 3.5 The present suit was thereaBer filed by the plain)ffs seeking a declara)on that they are owners of the suit land measuring 17 Kanal 5 Marla on the basis of the oral family par))on of 1968, and that the sale deed dated NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.20 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-607-1993 22.12.1980 executed by defendant No.2 Darshan Singh in favour of defendant No.1 Harnam Singh, qua 8 Kanal 12 Marla (half share), is null, void, illegal, and not binding upon their rights. A consequen)al relief of possession was also sought. 4. Stand of Contesng Defendant : The suit was contested by defen- dant No.1 Harnam Singh, who raised preliminary objec)ons of estoppel, res ju- dicata, and bar under Sec)on 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. On merits, it was pleaded that Darshan Singh was a co-sharer in the joint holding and had validly sold his half share to him vide sale deed dated 22.12.1980. It was further contended that he was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consider- a)on and had lawfully obtained possession through par))on proceedings. 5. In the rejoinder, the plain)ffs reiterated their stand. Upon the pleadings of the par)es, issues were framed and evidence was led. 6.1 Trial Court Findings : Upon apprecia)on of the evidence, the trial Court held that the plain)ffs had failed to prove the alleged oral family par))on of 1968. It was observed that the revenue record con)nued to reflect joint own- ership and that there was no reliable evidence to establish exclusive possession pursuant to par))on. The Court further held that there was no proof that de- fendant No.1 had knowledge of any such par))on. It was also no)ced that in the sale deed dated 07.06.1978 (Ex.D1/1) executed by Tehal Singh in favour of Pritam Singh, only a half share in the joint land was conveyed, without any refer- ence to prior par))on. The alleged exchange with Nirmal Singh was also disbe- lieved, as neither the concerned party nor any independent witness was exam- ined, and no muta)on of exchange was proved on record. 6.2 Consequently, defendant No.1 Harnam Singh was held to be a bona fide purchaser, and the suit was dismissed on 12.10.1988. 7.1 Appellate Court Findings : In appeal, the plain)ffs contended that the oral par))on stood duly proved and was even admi@ed by the defendants. However, the learned first Appellate Court rejected this conten)on. It was ob- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.20 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-607-1993 served that Darshan Singh, having derived )tle through exchange from Pritam Singh, was recorded as a co-sharer to the extent of half share, and thereaBer Harnam Singh, as vendee, was also recorded as co-sharer in the jamabandi for the year 1979-80, which fact remained undisputed. 7.2 The first Appellate Court further held that the oral evidence led by the plain)ffs was unreliable and insufficient to prove par))on. The witnesses examined by the plain)ffs were found lacking in credibility, par)cularly as they deposed that the par))on had been reduced into wri)ng, which was contrary to the pleaded case of an oral par))on. 7.3 It was also observed that the sale deed dated 07.06.1978 (Ex.D1/1) reflected transfer of both Barani as well as Chahi land, contrary to the plain)ffs’ asser)on that only Barani land had fallen to the share of Tehal Singh. The Court concluded that had there been a prior par))on in 1968, the same would have found men)on in the said document, thereby rendering the plea of oral par))on doubJul. 7.4 On these considera)ons, the first Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 17.10.1992. 8.1 Contenons of Appellants : Assailing the aforesaid findings, Learned senior counsel for the appellants contends that the Courts below erred in discarding the plea of oral par))on merely because it was not reflected in the revenue record. It is argued that under Sec)on 123 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, repor)ng of an oral par))on is not mandatory and absence of its en- try does not invalidate such par))on. It is further submi@ed that the oral family se@lement of June 1968 was duly acted upon, as evidenced by subsequent ex- change of land by Bhagat Singh with Nirmal Singh, which was sanc)oned through muta)on. The conduct of Tehal Singh in selling his allo@ed land and shiBing to another village is also relied upon to show that the par))on had been implemented in reality. Page 4 of 7 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.20 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-607-1993 8.2 Ld. Counsel further argues that defendant No.1 Harnam Singh has been wrongly held to be a bona fide purchaser. Being a resident of the same vil- lage and owning adjoining land, he was well aware of the prior oral par))on. Despite such knowledge, he entered into the agreement to sell and later ob- tained the sale deed, and therefore, cannot claim protec)on as a bona fide pur- chaser. 8.3 On these premises, it is prayed that the concurrent findings of the Courts below be set aside and the suit of the plain)ffs be decreed. 9.1 Response by Respondents : Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and contends that no interference is warranted in second appeal. It is argued that the alleged oral par))on of 1968 has not been proved by any reliable evidence. The revenue record consistently reflects the property as joint, and even subsequent transac)ons, including the sale deed executed by Tehal Singh, show transfer of only an undivided share, without any reference to prior par))on. 9.2 It is further submi@ed that the plain)ffs themselves acted in a manner inconsistent with their plea by acknowledging the joint nature of the property in earlier proceedings. The alleged exchange of land has also not been duly proved in accordance with law. 9.3 Ld. Counsel contends that defendant No.1 Harnam Singh is a bona fide purchaser, having purchased the suit property from a recorded co-sharer for valuable considera)on and having obtained possession through lawful par)- )on proceedings. 9.4 On these grounds, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed as it raises no substan)al ques)on of law and is devoid of merit. 10. Substanal Quesons of Law : Having heard learned counsel for the par)es and perused the record, this Court finds that the following substan)al ques)ons of law arise for considera)on: NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.20 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-607-1993
Whether mere non-reflec)on of an oral par))on in the revenue record is sufficient to discard such a plea;
Whether a purchaser from a co-sharer can be denied the status of a bona fide purchaser on the
basis of an unproved oral par))on; and
Whether the concurrent findings suffer from perversity so as to warrant interference under Sec)on 100 CPC. 11. Consideraon by this Court : It is well se@led that an oral par))on is legally permissible and need not necessarily be reflected in the revenue record. However, the burden to prove such par))on lies squarely on the party asser)ng it. In the present case, both the Courts below have, upon detailed ap- precia)on of the evidence, found that the plain)ffs failed to discharge this bur- den. The oral evidence led by them was found to be unreliable and lacking in credibility. Even the witnesses examined by the plain)ffs did not inspire confi- dence and, in fact, introduced inconsistencies with regard to the nature of par)- )on. 12. Significantly, the conduct of the par)es is wholly inconsistent with the plea of prior par))on. Tehal Singh, who is alleged to have been a party to the par))on, executed a sale deed in 1978 conveying only an undivided share in the joint holding, without any reference to par))on. Further, the plain)ffs themselves ini)ated par))on proceedings before the revenue authori)es, thereby acknowledging the joint nature of the property. These circumstances assume considerable importance and undermine the case set up by the plain- )ffs. 13. Though non-entry of par))on in the revenue record is not conclu- sive, it remains a relevant circumstance, par)cularly when coupled with absence of reliable evidence and inconsistent conduct of the par)es. 14. The concurrent findings of the Courts below, therefore, cannot be said to be based merely on absence of revenue entries but on a holis)c appreci- a)on of the en)re evidence on record. Page 6 of 7 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.20 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-607-1993 15. As regards the plea that defendant No.1 is not a bona fide pur- chaser, it is evident that he purchased the property from a recorded co-sharer and was duly entered as such in the revenue record. He also obtained posses- sion through par))on proceedings conducted by the competent authority. The asser)on that he had prior knowledge of an alleged oral par))on remains un- substan)ated. Mere residence in the same village cannot lead to an inference of no)ce of a private and unrecorded arrangement. 16. Insofar as the scope of interference under Sec)on 100 CPC is con- cerned, it is trite that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with un- less shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence. In the present case, no such perversity or illegality has been demonstrated. Rather, the find- ings recorded by the Courts below are well reasoned and supported by the evi- dence on record. 17. Once the plea of oral par))on fails, the en)re founda)on of the plain)ffs’ case collapses, and the challenge to the sale deed executed by a co- sharer cannot be sustained. 18. Conclusion : Consequently, the substan)al ques)ons of law, as framed, are answered against the appellants. The present appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 20.03.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on.: 20.03.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.20 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document