IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M) Ramdia (now deceased) thr LRs . . . . Appellant Vs. Hukam Singh and Others . . . . Respondents Reserved on: 04.02.2026 Pronounced on: 09.02.2026 Pronounced fully/opera:ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Jasvinder Rao, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Defendant No.1 is before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suit for declara- *on rela*ng to the property in dispute, filed by the sole plain*ff Hukam Singh (respondent No.1 herein), was decreed by the learned Addi*onal Senior Sub- Judge, Jind, vide judgment & decree dated 27.08.1993. The appeal preferred by defendant No.1 Ramdia (appellant herein) was dismissed by the learned Addi- *onal District Judge (II), Jind, vide judgment dated 15.09.1995. 2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the par*es shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The trial Court record, as available on the DMS, has been perused. 3. Admied Facts : The par*es are closely related, and their inter se rela*onship is not in dispute. One Chaju had three sons, namely Ramdia, Dariya, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M) and Ujala. Dariya died long back, and his estate devolved upon his widow Smt. Manbhari. Dariya and Manbhari had no issue, and Smt. Manbhari ul*mately died issueless. Ujala, the third son of Chaju, had admi:edly expired prior to the death of Smt. Manbhari. Defendant No.2 Smt. Mundri is the widow of Ujala, while the sole plain*ff Hukam Singh & defendant Nos.3 to 9 are the legal heirs of deceased Ujala. Defendant No.1 Ramdia, the appellant herein, is the remain- ing son of Chaju and is the real paternal uncle of the plain*ff. 4. Subject maer of dispute : The dispute pertains to the estate of deceased Smt. Manbhari, who owned property situated in two villages, namely Majra Pegan and Pegan, which she had inherited a>er the death of her husband Dariya. 5.1 Plainff’s Case : The case set up by the plain*ff was that Smt. Mundri (defendant No.2), the widow of Ujala, and Smt. Manbhari were real sis- ters. A>er the death of her husband Dariya, Smt. Manbhari allegedly resided with the plain*ff, who looked a>er and maintained her. Out of love and affec- *on, and pursuant to a family se:lement, Smt. Manbhari suffered a decree dated 05.01.1988 in Civil Suit No.4 of 1988 *tled “Hukam Singh vs. Manbhari”, passed by the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Jind. Smt. Manbhari therea>er died intestate on 10.01.1988. 5.2 It was further pleaded that defendant No.1, who was only dis- tantly related to Smt. Manbhari, in collusion with the Patwari and the Number- dar of the village, got a false report entered in the Roznamcha, showing the date of death of Smt. Manbhari as 21.12.1987. On the basis of the said manipulated entry, two muta*ons, namely muta*on No.786 (Ex.P9) and muta*on No.2026 (Ex.P10), rela*ng to the proper*es of Smt. Manbhari situated in the two vil- lages, were sanc*oned. The plain*ff contended that the entry regarding the date of death, purportedly based on the statement of Ramphal son of Ramdia, was fraudulent and manipulated, as Smt. Manbhari had in fact expired on 10.01.1988. Page 2 of 11 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M) 5.3 On these asser*ons, the plain*ff sought a decree of declara*on to the effect that he was the owner in possession of the suit land described in the headnote of the plaint, on the basis of the decree dated 05.01.1988 suffered by Smt. Manbhari in his favour. A further declara*on was sought that muta*on Nos.786 and 2026 were illegal, void ab ini*o, and not binding upon his rights. Consequen*al relief of permanent injunc*on was also claimed to restrain the defendant N: 1 from forcibly dispossessing him, interfering in his peaceful pos- session, or aliena*ng the suit land. 6. Defendants’ Stand : Defendant Nos.2 to 9, being the mother, sib- lings, and children of siblings of the plain*ff, filed a wri:en statement admiEng the claim of the plain*ff in toto. 7. Only defendant No.1 Ramdia contested the suit. He pleaded that Smt. Manbhari had, in fact, expired on 21.12.1987 and was wrongly shown to have died on 10.01.1988. According to him, the entry in the Chowkidar’s regis- ter showing the date of death as 10.01.1988 was incorrect and had been manip- ulated by the plain*ff. It was further pleaded that Dariya had died much earlier, that Smt. Manbhari never resided with the plain*ff, and that no family se:le- ment ever took place between them. Defendant No.1 alleged that the plain*ff had played fraud upon the Court by obtaining the decree dated 05.01.1988 through impersona*on, as Smt. Manbhari was not alive on the date, when the decree was passed. It was further asserted that the impugned muta*ons had been entered and sanc*oned by the revenue authori*es in a rou*ne course af- ter due verifica*on from the Lambardar regarding the death of Smt. Manbhari. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 8. In rejoinder, the plain*ff reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied the allega*ons raised by defendant No.1. 9. Findings of Courts Below : On the basis of the pleadings, neces- sary issues were framed. The par*es led their respec*ve evidence. Upon appre- cia*on of the evidence on record, the trial Court returned a categorical finding NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M) that Smt. Manbhari had expired on 10.01.1988 and not on 21.12.1987, as al- leged by defendant No.1. It was further held that the judgment & decree dated 05.01.1988 had been validly suffered by Smt. Manbhari in favour of the plain*ff, who consequently became the owner of the suit land. Muta*on Nos.786 and 2026 were declared illegal, void ab ini*o, and not binding on the rights of the plain*ff. Defendant No.1 was restrained from interfering in the possession of the plain*ff over the suit land and from aliena*ng the same. 10. The aforesaid judgment and decree dated 27.08.1993 passed by the trial Court were affirmed by the first Appellate Court, which dismissed the appeal filed by defendant No.1, vide judgment dated 15.09.1995. 11.1 Contenons of the Appellant : Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings of the Courts below, learned counsel appearing for the appellant–de- fendant No.1 has vehemently argued that both the Courts have commi:ed grave illegality by mis-apprecia*ng the evidence on record. 11.2 The primary conten*on raised is with regard to the actual date of death of Smt. Manbhari. It is urged that cogent and convincing oral as well as documentary evidence was produced by the defendant-appellant to establish that Manbhari had expired on 21.12.1987, which evidence has been completely ignored by both the Courts below. Learned counsel submits that the Courts have been unduly influenced by the fact that a decree dated 05.01.1988 was al- legedly suffered by Manbhari in favour of the plain*ff, and on that premise alone concluded that she must have been alive on the said date. 11.3 Assailing this approach, learned counsel points out that Shri J.N. Bhardwaj, Advocate (PW-4), who was examined by the plain*ff to prove the wri:en statement and the statement purportedly made by Manbhari in Civil Suit No.4 of 1988, candidly admi:ed during cross-examina*on that he did not know Smt. Manbhari personally. It is argued that once the Advocate, who al- legedly appeared for Manbhari, did not even know her, the Courts below could not have presumed that the lady, who appeared before the Court and suffered NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M) the decree was in fact Manbhari herself. According to the appellant, the only plausible inference in such circumstances is that some other lady impersonated Manbhari in order to fraudulently obtain the decree dated 05.01.1988. 11.4 The next limb of argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the plain*ff, in a calculated manner, got the date of death of Manbhari recorded as 10.01.1988 in the Chowkidar’s register. Upon coming to know of this manipula*on, defendant No.1 lodged a complaint, pursuant to which an enquiry was conducted by the competent authori*es. It is submi:ed that during the enquiry, statements of the Lambardar, Sarpanch, and other re- spectables of the village were recorded, and the authori*es concluded that Manbhari had actually expired on 21.12.1987. Consequent thereto, the date of death was corrected in the official record. 11.5 Learned counsel further submits that the death cer*ficate (Ex.DW4/A) reflects both dates i.e., 10.01.1988 and 21.12.1987, and, therefore, the said document could not have been brushed aside by the Courts below. It is contended that once the official record itself reflected correc*on of the date of death a>er due enquiry, the Courts were duty-bound to give due weight to the same. 11.6 Another significant argument raised by learned counsel pertains to the report of the handwri*ng and document expert. It is submi:ed that the ex- pert report categorically established that the thumb impressions appearing on the wri:en statement, vakalatnama, and statement purported to be of Manbhari in the earlier li*ga*on did not tally with her genuine thumb impres- sions. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below erred in discarding the ex- pert report merely on the ground that the standard thumb impressions of Manbhari were not proved. 11.7 In this regard, a:en*on is drawn to the tes*mony of the official, who produced the pension record of Smt. Manbhari. It is argued that the official brought on record the pension applica*on and related documents bearing NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M) Manbhari’s thumb impressions, which cons*tuted reliable standard specimens. According to learned counsel, the expert compared those standard thumb im- pressions with the disputed ones appearing in the earlier civil suit, and the mis- match conclusively proved impersona*on. Despite this, the Courts below, by adop*ng a hyper-technical approach, rejected the expert evidence and wrongly upheld the decree dated 05.01.1988. 11.8 On the cumula*ve strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is overwhelming oral and docu- mentary evidence to establish that Manbhari had expired on 21.12.1987 and, therefore, she could not have suffered the decree dated 05.01.1988. Conse- quently, the decree relied upon by the plain*ff is void and unsustainable in law. 11.9 S*ll further, it is argued that upon the death of Manbhari, who had inherited the suit property from her husband Dariya, only defendant No.1 Ram- dia, being the surviving brother of Dariya, was en*tled to inherit the estate in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Alterna*vely, learned counsel submits that even if the claim of the legal heirs of Ujala is con- sidered, at best the property could devolve half upon defendant No.1 and half upon the legal heirs of Ujala, and in no case, could the plain*ff claim exclusive ownership. 11.10 On these premises, prayer is made for seEng aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and for dismissal of the suit of the plain*ff. 12.1 Contenons of Respondent : Per contra, learned counsel appear- ing for the respondent-plain*ff has supported the judgments of the Courts be- low and contended that the findings returned are concurrent findings of fact, based upon proper apprecia*on of evidence, and do not call for any interfer- ence in the second appeal. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M) 12.2 It is argued that the death cer*ficate (Ex.DW4/A) originally recorded the date of death of Manbhari as 10.01.1988, and it was only subse- quently, at the instance of defendant No.1 and in collusion with the Patwari and Lambardar, that the said date was manipulated and altered to 21.12.1987. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below rightly disbelieved the alleged correc*on made in the official record. 12.3 With regard to the expert evidence, learned counsel submits that the Courts below were jus*fied in rejec*ng the handwri*ng and fingerprint ex- pert report, as the alleged standard thumb impressions of Manbhari were not proved to be genuine or duly taken in accordance with law. It is argued that in the absence of legally proved standard specimens, the expert opinion was rightly held to be unreliable. 12.4 Learned counsel further contends that the decree dated 05.01.1988, having a:ained finality, could not be collaterally challenged in the present proceedings. It is submi:ed that Smt. Manbhari, being the absolute owner of the suit property and having no Class-I heir, was fully competent to dispose of her property in any lawful manner, including by suffering a decree in favour of the plain*ff. The Courts below, therefore, rightly upheld the validity of the decree and declared the impugned muta*ons to be illegal. 12.5 On these submissions, learned counsel for the respondent prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 13. Substanal queson of law : On the basis of the rival submissions, the following substan*al ques*ons of law arise for considera*on:
Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding the date of death of Smt. Manbhari suffer from any perversity due to non-consid- era*on of material evidence, thereby warran*ng interference under Sec- *on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Page 7 of 11 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M) 14. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both sides and has carefully appraised the record, within the con- fines of its jurisdic*on under Sec*on 100 CPC. 15. Court Consideraon & Finding : The date of death of Smt. Manbhari cons*tutes the central and determina*ve issue in the present case. It is manifest that if Smt. Manbhari had expired on 21.12.1987, as is pleaded by defendant-appellant, the inevitable consequence would be that the decree dated 05.01.1988 could not have been suffered by her and would necessarily be the result of impersona*on. 16. As per the death cer*ficate Ex.DW4/A (also Ex.DWF/A), issued from the office of the District Registrar (Births and Deaths), the date of death is shown as 10.01.1988. At the same *me, by way of correc*on, the date 21.12.1987 is also reflected, accompanied by a red-ink note indica*ng that the entry in the relevant column had been altered. 17. The manner in which this change came to be effected becomes ev- ident from the inquiry proceedings forming part of the record. It is true that in the register maintained by the village Chowkidar, the date of death of Smt. Manbhari is shown as 10.01.1988, which entry was a:ributed to Chowkidar Pu- ran. However, contemporaneously, Rapat Roznamcha No.205 was recorded in the Roznamcha Vakaya* of Halka Paigan on 01.01.1988 on the informa*on fur- nished by Ramphal son of Ramdia, sta*ng that his mausi Smt. Manbhari had ex- pired on 21.12.1987. This Rapat was recorded by Dayanand, Numberdar of the village. 18. Ramphal, therea>er, submi:ed a wri:en complaint (Mark ‘A’) to the SDO (Civil), Jind, poin*ng out that although Manbhari had died on 21.12.1987, her date of death had been wrongly recorded as 10.01.1988 and sought correc*on of the same. The complaint was forwarded for verifica*on, leading to a formal inquiry involving the SHO Rajaund, Tehsildar Jind, Girdawar Halka, Field Kanungo, and the Halka Patwari. Himmat Singh, Patwari of village NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M) Paigan, a>er verifica*on from village residents, Panchayat members, and other respectables, submi:ed a report confirming that Smt. Manbhari, widow of Dariya, had in fact expired on 21.12.1987. The report bears signatures and thumb impressions of Pyare Lal, Panch, and several other villagers. 19. During the inquiry, a statement of Puran Chowkidar was also recorded, wherein he stated that he was illiterate and that Phool Singh, son of Ujala (brother of the plainff), had taken his register and himself recorded the date of death as 10.01.1988, despite the death having occurred on 21.12.1987. Statements of other villagers, including Bhim Singh, Member Panchayat, were also recorded (Mark ‘B’), all uniformly suppor*ng the date of death as 21.12.1987. Upon comple*on of the inquiry, the SDO (Civil) directed correc*on of the death register, pursuant to which the date of death was corrected to 21.12.1987. 20. The inquiry was conducted in the course of official duty by compe- tent authori*es. In the absence of any evidence sugges*ng mala fides or proce- dural irregularity, the presump*on of correctness a:ached to official acts was required to be given due weight. The Courts below, however, rejected the in- quiry proceedings without recording any cogent reasons, thereby ignoring mate- rial evidence bearing directly on the core issue. 21. Further corrobora*on is available from Muta*on Nos.786 and 2026 rela*ng to the land of Smt. Manbhari in the two villages. Both muta*ons were entered by the Halka Patwari on 02.01.1988, verified by the Kanungo on 05.01.1988, and sanc*oned on the same date. In the relevant columns, the date of death of Manbhari is recorded as 21.12.1987 on the basis of Rapat No.205 dated 01.01.1988. Entry of inheritance muta*ons necessarily pre-supposes the death of the landowner. Such entries on 02.01.1988 could not have been made, if Manbhari had been alive *ll 10.01.1988, as claimed by the plain*ff. 22. Another significant piece of evidence is the report of the hand- wri*ng and fingerprint expert Ex.DW9/A proved by DW9 Yashpal Jain. The ex- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M) pert compared the disputed thumb impressions appearing on the wri:en state- ment, vakalatnama, applica*on for summoning the file, and statement made in Civil Suit No.4 of 1988 with the admi:ed thumb impression of Smt. Manbhari taken from her old age pension applica*on Ex.DW5/B, which was proved by DW5 Ashwini, an official from the Social Welfare Department. Upon examina- *on, the expert opined that the disputed thumb impressions were not affixed by the same person, who had affixed the thumb impression on the pension ap- plica*on. The opinion was supported by photographic enlargements. No rebut- tal evidence was led by the plain*ff to discredit this report. 23. The Courts below discarded the expert opinion on the ground that the plain*ff had not admi:ed that Manbhari used to draw old age pension. This reasoning does not withstand scru*ny, as the plain*ff merely pleaded ignorance and did not deny the pension being withdrawn by Manbhari. Once the pension applica*on bearing Manbhari’s thumb impression was proved from official records, the standard specimen stood duly established. 24. As regards the oral evidence, PW1 Hukam Singh claimed that Manbhari was alive *ll 10.01.1988 and was under treatment at Jind for about 15–20 days prior to her death. However, no medical evidence whatsoever was produced. No doctor was examined and no prescrip*on or treatment record was brought on file. Even the Chowkidar register records fever as the cause of death, but no material was produced to substan*ate treatment during the rele- vant period. Further, the version that an ailing elderly woman could have trav- elled to Court on 05.01.1988, engaged a counsel, moved applica*ons, and made a statement to suffer a decree, remains unexplained. 25. It is also relevant that Phool Singh, who was specifically named during the inquiry as having manipulated the Chowkidar record, did not step into the witness box to deny the allega*on, despite being a party to the suit and suppor*ng the plain*ff’s case. Page 10 of 11 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M) 26. A perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below reveals that no cogent reasons have been recorded for discarding the official inquiry re- port, the muta*on entries, and the unrebu:ed expert evidence. The inquiry was conducted by competent authori*es in discharge of official du*es, and the record thereof was produced through official witnesses. In the absence of any material sugges*ng mala fides, such evidence could not have been brushed aside. 27. On an overall considera*on of the material on record, the conclu- sion that Smt. Manbhari had expired on 21.12.1987 emerges clearly. Once that posi*on is accepted, it necessarily follows that she could not have suffered the decree dated 05.01.1988. The decree, therefore, cannot be sustained and does not confer any valid right upon the plain*ff. 28. While this Court remains conscious of the limita*on on interfer- ence with concurrent findings of fact, the present case falls within the recog- nised excep*ons, as the findings of the Courts below suffer from non-considera- *on of material evidence and misapprecia*on of the record. 29. Consequently, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside, and the suit filed by the plain*ff Hukam Singh is dismissed with costs. In view of the stand taken by the appellant, Muta*on Nos.786 and 2026 are upheld as valid, whereby half share of the estate of Smt. Manbhari shall vest in defendant No.1 Ramdia, and the remaining half shall vest in the le- gal heirs of Ujala. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed leaving the par*es to bear their own costs. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 09.02.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on.: 09.02.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document