IN THE 113 Kartara Ram thr Mukhtiara Ram CORAM: HON Present: Mr for *** PARMOD GO Ap recorded by C 21.12.2013 pas which suit for d also by judgme District Judge, Y plaintiffs was al 2. Ap be exclusive ow 5 kanals 16 mar in-possession of described in par dated 09.11.199 plaintiffs had No.4950 dated defendant No.1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH am through legal representatives and A Versus a Ram and Others : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMO Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for appellants. *** D GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieved by Courts below vide impugned 3 passed by Civil Judge (Junior D it for declaration preferred by appellan judgment and decree dated 24.01.20 dge, Yamuna Nagar vide which first a was also dismissed. Appellants-plaintiffs vide their suit ive owners in possession to extent of 16 marlas. It was asserted that appella sion of land measuring 9 kanals 2 mar in paragraph (ii) of the head note of th .11.1998 executed by their father na had claimed that mutation No.947 an dated 30.09.2009 executed by defend t No.1 are illegal, null and void. Ap -1- NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH RSA-5061-2018(O&M) Date of decision:19.01.2026 s and Another ...Appellants ...Respondents ARMOD GOYAL rieved by concurrent finding of facts gned judgment and decree dated nior Division) Yamuna Nagar vide pellants-plaintiffs was dismissed and .01.2018 passed by the Additional irst appeal preferred by appellants- suit for declaration had claimed to ent of equal share of land measuring ppellants-plaintiffs are joint owners- 2 marlas, having 3/4th share in land, te of the plaint, as per registered will her namely, Kalu Ram. Appellants- 947 and 952 as well as release deed defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of Apart from relief of declaration, - 2026 ents facts ated vide and ional - ed to uring - land, will - deed ur of tion, SUNIL CHANDER 2026.01.20 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5061-2018 appellants-plain Appellants-plain possession of su separately for m suffered a decre Sub-Judge, Jaga were declared o comprised in kh challenged by d Jagjit Singh, Su were held co- was stated to b against judgme appellate Court 3. It i plaintiffs had di appellants-plain properties to ap basis of said W getting mutation to be owners in in favour of def defendant No.1 suit property on well relinquishm 2018 plaintiffs had also sought relief plaintiffs had asserted that their fat n of suit land; that defendant No.1 se for more than 35 years from the join decree dated 06.11.1993 passed by C e, Jagadhari in Civil Suit No.830 of lared owner-in-possession of land me d in khasra No.32//8/2/2 and 7//19/2 a d by defendant No.1 and same was Sub Judge Jagadhari. Appellants -sharers in possession of 1/4th sh d to be of Kalu Ram. The appeal pre udgment and decree dated 28.09.1 Court vide judgment and decree dated It is the case of appellants-plaint had died on 29.07.2002 after executing plaintiffs on 09.11.1998, leaving all s to appellants-plaintiffs. However, no Will. That defendants, in collusion utation No.947, whereby all the legal h in equal shares. Defendant Nos.2 of defendant No.1 and a Mutation No t No.1. By suit for declaration, appel rty on the basis of Will by declaring m quishment deed dated 30.09.2009 to b -2- relief of permanent injunction. eir father Kalu Ram was owner-in- o.1 separated long ago and is living he joint family; that their father had d by Court of Sh. S.P. Singh, Senior 30 of 1993 and appellants-plaintiffs nd measuring 12 kanals 03 marlas, /19/2 and 20/1. The said decree was was set aside by the Court of Sh. llants-plaintiffs and defendant No.1 share each and remaining 1/4th eal preferred by appellants-plaintiffs .1998 was dismissed by first dated 08.05.2000. plaintiffs that father of appellants- ecuting a registered Will in favour of ing all his movable and immovable er, no mutation was executed on the sion with each other, succeeded in legal heirs of Kalu Ram were shown Nos.2 and 3 had released their share ion No.952 was entered in favour of appellants-plaintiffs claimed entire aring mutation dated 947 and 952 as 09 to be illegal, void and not binding tion. - iving r had enior ntiffs , was f Sh. No.1 1/4th ntiffs first - ur of able n the ed in own share ur of ntire 52 as ding SUNIL CHANDER 2026.01.20 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5061-2018 on the rights of 4. De of Kalu Ram w No.1. Appella possession to th asserted that th forged, fabricat Nos.2 and 3 we out of their free suit was prayed 5. Fol i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii 6. Lea present case, s 2018 hts of appellants-plaintiffs. Defendants claimed that co-parcen am was held to joint family property ppellants-plaintiffs and defendants n to the extent of 1/4th share each in th that the alleged registered Will in fav abricated and vexatious document. It d 3 were the lawful owners of the sui ir free will, executed relinquishment d rayed for. Following issues were framed by th i) Whether plaintiffs are entitl prayed for?OPP ii) Whether plaintiffs are ent injunction, as prayed for?OP iii) Whether suit of the plaintiffs iv) Whether plaintiffs have not clean hands?OPD v) Whether plaintiffs have no present suit?OPD vi) Whether plaintiffs have no l suit?OPD vii) Whether plaintiffs are stop suit?OPD viii) Relief. Learned counsel for appellants ase, suit property was joint Hindu -3- parcenery suit property in the hands operty in the suit filed by defendant dants were declared owners in in the suit property. Further, it was in favour of appellants-plaintiffs is . It was claimed that defendant the suit property and therefore, they ent deed and therefore, dismissal of d by the Court of first instance:- entitled to relief of declaration as e entitled to relief of permanent or?OPP intiffs is not maintainable?OPD ve not approached this Court with ve no cause of action to file the e no locus standi to file the present e stopped from filing the present lants-plaintiffs has argued that in Hindu family property/ancestral/co- ands dant s in t was ffs is dant they al of n as nent with the esent esent t in - SUNIL CHANDER 2026.01.20 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5061-2018 parcenery prope amendment, wh since succession had no right ov devolved only i defendant No.1 holding suit p defendant Nos.2 counsel for app below, whereby rejected. 7. On plaintiffs appea in consideration hands of Kalu measuring 12 k 7//19/2 were on said property defendant No.1. 8. It i No.1-father of passed by Sh. S Suit No.830 of possession of la of judgment an 2018 property in the hands of Kalu Ram, whereby daughters have been give cession had opened up prior to amend ght over the suit property and the prop only in favour of co-parceners, who o.1 alone and therefore, the learne suit property to be self-acquired pr t Nos.2 and 3 succeeded on account o or appellants-plaintiffs has also challe hereby Will dated 09.11.1988 set up On first look, argument raised by le appears to be attractive, however, lear eration filing of previous suit where Kalu Ram were duly partitioned. g 12 kanals 03 marlas comprised in ere only claimed to be joint property a ty to be co-parcenery/ancestral .1. It is also worth noticing that prior t er of appellants-plaintiffs had suffere Sh. S.P. Singh, the then learned Senio 30 of 1993, whereby appellants-plain n of land measuring 12 kanals 03 ma ent and decree dated 28.09.1998 and -4- Ram, who died in 2002 before 2005 n given right to be co-parceners and amendment, therefore, the daughters e property of Kalu Ram would have , who were appellants-plaintiffs and learned Courts below have erred in red property of Kalu Ram which ount of natural succession. Learned challenged finding of learned Courts set up by appellants-plaintiffs was d by learned counsel for appellants- er, learned Courts have rightly taken whereby the joint properties in the ned. It is worth noticing that land ed in khasra No.32//8/2/2, 20/1 and perty and suit for partition, claiming estral property, was preferred by ior to filing of said suit, defendant suffered a decree dated 16.11.1993 Senior Sub-Judge, Jagadhri in Civil plaintiffs were declared owners-in- 3 marlas which was subject matter 8 and 08.05.2000. The said decree 2005 s and hters have and ed in hich rned ourts was - aken the land and ming by dant 1993 Civil - atter ecree SUNIL CHANDER 2026.01.20 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5061-2018 dated 06.11.199 No.1 culminatin and decree, wh found entitled t against judgme plaintiffs was a decree dated 08 judgment and had only 12 ka partitioned amo being co-parcen given to defend time only male Said judgment time of filing su not added as jo 9. Fur present suit p parcenery prop judgment and appellants-plain goes to show th could have bee succession. A 09.11.1998 stat 2018 11.1993, however was set aside in civ inating into judgment and decree da , whereby appellants-plaintiffs and titled to 1/4th share each, has attaine udgment and decree dated 28.09.19 was also dismissed by first appella ted 08.05.2000. From judgment and decree date 08.05.2000, it is cle 12 kanals 02 marlas land, which was d amongst all the three sons and fath parceners. In said joint family/co-par defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are daug male co-parceners were entitled to h ment and decree has attained finalit ling suit, the suit land which is subjec as joint/ancestral/co-parcenery proper Furthermore, there is no evidenc uit property was co-parcenery pro properties, which were subject mat nd decrees dated 28.09.1998 a plaintiffs to show that suit land is how that suit property was self-acquir ve been succeeded either by way o n. Appellants-plaintiffs have also 8 stated to have been executed by K -5- in civil suit preferred by defendant ree dated 28.09.1998. The judgment fs and their father Kalu Ram were attained finality as appeal preferred .1998 preferred by appellants- appellate Court vide judgment and t and decree dated 28.09.1998 and clearly made out that Kalu Ram ch was joint in nature and was duly d father to the extent of 1/4th share parcenery property, no share was e daughters of Kalu Ram, as at that d to have the co-parcenery property. finality between the parties. At the subject matter of present appeal was property. idence on record to conclude that ry property along with other co- ct matter of earlier suit as well as 998 and 08.05.2000. Failure of nd is co-parcenery property in fact acquired property of Kalu Ram and ay of will or by way of natural also placed on record Will dated d by Kalu Ram. However, attesting dant ment were erred - and and Ram duly share was that . t the l was that - ll as e of fact and tural ated sting SUNIL CHANDER 2026.01.20 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5061-2018 witness of said vigour of cros the Courts belo due execution o 10. I d Courts below o that suit propert on the day of succeeded by h sons and two da held both the da suit property an deed in favour because appella 11. Fin appreciation of appellants-plain Ex.D1, wherein amongst himse shown in Ex.D i) pre as b ii) par 2018 f said Will examined by appellants cross-examination and his evidence h ts below to conclude that appellants tion of Will dated 09.11.1998. I do not find any error in the c ow on appreciation of evidence plac property was self-acquired property in ay of succession, in absence of an d by his class-I heirs as per Hindu Su two daughters. Therefore, in the presen the daughters i.e. defendant Nos.2 an rty and out of their own free will, the favour of defendant No.1, which ca appellants-plaintiffs have not found fav Finding of learned Courts below h ion of evidence led by parties. Faced plaintiffs have tried to argue and herein 18 kanals land was agreed himself and three sons, however, sa D1 is liable to be ignored for two i) That the particulars of land present proceedings was not given as being claimed by appellants-plai ii) That Ex.D1 cannot be re partition in 1993 as vide Ex.D1 on -6- ellants-plaintiffs have not stood the ence has been rightly appreciated by llants-plaintiffs have failed to prove the conclusions drawn by learned e placed on record. Once, it is held erty in the hands of Kalu Ram then of any will, the same would be ndu Succession Act i.e. all the three present case, the Courts have rightly os.2 and 3 to have 1/5th share in the ill, they had executed relinquishment ich cannot be faulted with merely und favour with their sisters. elow have been arrived at after due Faced with this, learned counsel for e and rely upon alleged partition, greed to be divided by Kalu Ram ver, said intention of Kalu Ram as r two reasons:- of land which is subject matter of t given in said compromise/partition plaintiffs. be relied upon to conclude that 1 only intention to divide the land the d by rove rned held then d be three ghtly n the ment erely due l for ition, Ram m as er of tition that land SUNIL CHANDER 2026.01.20 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5061-2018 in upo ju ent app H illegal and was 28.05.2000 and marlas was co sons were entitl 12. The never acted upo over to the par interference is m upon appreciatio 13. Ap 14. Pen 19.01.2026 Sunil Chander Wh Wh 2018 in four parts, was expressed. H upon, rather, in the same year in 19 judgment and decree in favour o entire joint property measuring 12 appellants-plaintiffs. However, said judgment and decre d was set aside vide judgments and and it was held that the suit propert as co-parcenery properties, which Ka entitled to. Therefore, in present case, it is cle ed upon, neither suit land was divided he parties, whose names are mention is made out. Concurrent finding of reciation of evidence. No substantial q Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : -7- However, this was never acted r in 1993, Kalu Ram had sufferred a vour of appellants-plaintiffs giving ing 12 kanals 03 marlas in favour of decree was subsequently held to be and decrees dated 28.09.1998 and roperty to the extent of 12 kanals 03 ich Kalu Ram along with his three t is clearly made out that Ex.D1 was ivided nor its possession was handed entioned in Ex.D1. No ground for of learned Courts below is based ntial question of law arises. sed. y, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No acted red a iving ur of to be and 3 three was nded d for ased AL) SUNIL CHANDER 2026.01.20 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document