RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 214 Date of decision: 19.01.2026 1. RSA-2593-2014 (O&M) Sarwan Kumar ...Appellant(s) Vs. Parkash Chand and another ...Respondent(s) AND 2. RSA-3564-2019 (O&M) Sarwan Kumar ...Appellant(s) Vs. Chaman Lal and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. N.C.Kinra, Mr.Harsh Kinra, and Ms. Apoorva Kinra, Advocates for the appellant in both RSA. Mr. Chetan Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.2 in RSA-2593-2014 and for respondent No.1 in RSA-3564-2019. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. RS A-2593-2014 (O& M) Present second appeal has been -led by the plain/0 against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby Civil Suit No. 94 dated 16.08.2003 -led by the appellant for DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 2 - declara/on with consequen/al relief of permanent injunc/on, has been dismissed by both Courts below. RS A-3564-2019 (O& M) Present second appeal has been -led by the plain/0 against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby Civil Suit No. 568 dated 08.06.2011 -led by the appellant for permanent injunc/on, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. Both the above said appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as both are in respect of the same suit land; between the same par/es; and facts and issues involved in both the appeals are iden/cal. Vide order dated 25.07.2019, Predecessor Bench of this Court had directed in RSA-3564-2019 that both the appeals be heard together. For the sake of facility, facts are being drawn from RSA-2593-2014 /tled as “Sarwan Kumar vs. Parkash Chand and another.” 3. The facts as pleaded by the appellant in the plaint was that the suit property measuring 206 sq.yds. was purchased by the plain/0 and defendant No.1 and one another brother, namely, Gian Chand from its previous owner Smt. Shan/ Devi vide registered Sale Deed dated 16.01.1990. Therea@er, construc/on on the suit property was raised by all the three brothers. It was contended that since the property was not par//oned, nobody had the right to alienate or dispose of the same in favour of anybody. However, defendant No.1 has sold property in ques/on to defendant No.2 vide Sale Deed dated 29.07.2003 without consent and will of the plain/0 and without the par//on of the DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 3 - property. Thus, the said Sale Deed dated 29.07.2003 was illegal, null and void. It was further alleged in the plaint that the defendant No.1 had sold more than his share in the suit property to defendant No.2. It was further alleged that defendant No.2 is trying to make addi/on, altera/on or construc/on in the suit property, which could not be permiBed. Plain/0 had requested defendants not to do so but to no e0ect. Accordingly, present Civil Suit No. 94 dated 16.08.2003 was -led seeking declara/on to the e0ect “that the sale deed dated 29.7.2003 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void, unlawful and carries no value in the eyes of law, as the property measuring 206 Sq. Yds., bearing Pvt. No.6-A, Khasra Khata No.1781- 1783-1784-1785, No.344/360, situated at Abadi Guru Gobind Singh Nagar Sub urban, Majitha Road, Amritsar has not been par22oned by metes and bounds and with the consequen2al relief of permanent injunc2on restraining the defendant No.2 from making any addi2on, altera2on or construc2on in the said property in any manner whatsoever may be”. 4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the par/es, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar had dismissed the Civil Suit No. 94 dated 16.08.2003 of the plain/0 vide judgment and decree dated 13.06.2012. The Civil Appeal No. 14899 of 2012 -led by the plain/0 was dismissed by the learned Addi/onal District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2013. Hence, the present RSA-2593-2014 has been -led by the plain/0. DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 4 - 5. It may be pointed out that during the pendency of the Civil Suit No. 94 dated 16.08.2003, plain/0 had also -led Civil Suit No. 568 dated 08.06.2011 (subject maBer of RSA-3564-2019) before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar /tled as Sarwan Kumar vs. Chaman Lal and another, seeking following relief:- “Suit for Permanent Injunc2on restraining the defendant No.1 himself or his associates, privies agents, representa2ves, a6orneys etc. from dismantling any part of the property or from raising any kind of addi2ons, altera2ons, construc2on, reconstruc2on by demolishing the property and also restraining from changing the nature of the building i.e. dwelling house measuring 206 square yards, bearing private No.6-A, Khasra No.1781-1783-1784-1785, Khata No.344/360, situated at abadi Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Sub Urban, Majitha Road, Amritsar and also restraining the defendant No.2 from gran2ng any permission to the defendant No.1 or any other person for such kind of dismantling or addi2ons, altera2ons and construc2on over the said dwelling house and also restraining from changing the nature of the building in ques2on without obtaining wri6en consent from the plain28 as there is vested interest of the plain28 in the property in ques2on”. 6. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the par/es, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar had dismissed the Civil Suit No. 568 dated 08.06.2011 vide judgment and decree dated 27.02.2017. The Civil Appeal No. 338 of 4.5.2017 -led by the plain/0 was dismissed by the learned Addi/onal District Judge, Amritsar vide DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 5 - vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2019. Hence, the present RSA- 3564-2019 has been -led by the plain/0. 7. It is inter alia submiBed by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Courts below were in error in non-sui/ng the appellant as they failed to appreciate that the Sale Deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 of speci-c por/on of the suit property was not maintainable without there being any par//on of the suit property. It is submiBed that ample evidence has been brought on record by the appellant that the property had been jointly purchased by the brothers and construc/on thereupon, had been raised with joint funds. However, learned Courts below have ignored the evidence produced by the appellant. Learned Courts below have also failed to appreciate that since the par//on of the property had not been proved therefore, defendant No.1 could not alienate speci-c por/on to defendant No.2. Learned Courts below have not even gone into ques/on as to whether sale of defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was more than his share. It is contended that at most, defendant No.2 can be held to be joint owner of the suit property in dispute to the extent and share of the ownership of defendant No.1. It is reiterated that defendant No.1 being co-sharer in the property in dispute, could not have alienated speci-c por/on of the joint property without geHng the same par//oned. 8. It is submiBed by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant led suIcient oral as well as documentary evidence to prove DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 6 - the factum of jointness of the appellant with respondent No.1. It was proved and not disputed by the adversary. On the one hand, there was documentary and concrete evidence to prove that the property was joint and not par//oned while on the other hand, without any tangible evidence and on slippery evidence of oral par//on, the suit has been dismissed without any discussion and reasoning of discarding the evidence of the appellant. Thus, the learned courts below have erred in not following the seBled principles of law to the prejudice of the appellant and thus, the impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be set aside. 9. It is lastly submiBed that the learned First Appellate Court has not properly dealt with the Civil Appeal -led by the appellant as required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. It is accordingly prayed that present Second Appeals be allowed; and impugned judgments and decrees be set aside. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant/respondent No.2 in RSA-2593-2014 and defendant no.2/respondent No.1 in RSA-3564-2019 vehemently opposes submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that the appellant has not -led Civil Suit for par//on for the reason that an oral par//on had taken place between the brothers which has also been admiBed to by the par/es. 11. It is further submiBed that in any event, appellant has no locus standi as the appellant is aBes/ng witness to the Agreement to Sale dated 23.01.2003 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 7 - defendant No.2 in pursuance to which property was sold to the defendant No.2 vide the impugned Sale Deed dated 29.07.2003 Ex.D1. It is further submiBed that one of the co-sharers of the suit property i.e. Gian Singh, brother of the plain/0, who had appeared as PW8, is also aBes/ng witness to the impugned Sale Deed. It is submiBed that therefore, the appellant cannot lay challenge to the Sale Deed executed by his brother/defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. In support, Ld. counsel relies upon judgment of this Court in Bhim Singh v. Harbans Singh (P&H): Law Finder Doc Id# 230486. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeals. 12. No other argument is raised on behalf of learned counsel for the par/es. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case -le in detail. I -nd no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. 13. It is the conten/on of learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned Sale Deed dated 29.07.2003 Ex.D1 has been executed without geHng land par//oned. However, it is the admiBed case of the appellant that the suit property is joint in nature. It is also admiBed case of the plain/0 that defendant No.1 is owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property. Therefore, defendant No.1 being owner of the suit property, was competent to execute the impugned Sale Deed. Needless to say, defendant No.1 cannot sell more than his share in the suit land. 14. It has next been contended on behalf of the appellant that defendant No.1 has sold more than his share in the suit property. However, even the said conten/on of the appellant is factually incorrect DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 8 - as there are unequivocal clear -ndings of fact returned by both the Courts below to the e0ect that the Sale Deed Ex.D1 has been executed qua por/on measuring 69 sq.yds. approximately; and undisputedly, 1/3 share of the defendant no.1 in suit property measuring 206 yd.², comes to approximately 68.6 sq.yds. Clearly therefore, defendant No.1 has not sold in excess of his share. For this reason, as well, plain/0 has no cause of ac/on. 15. Furthermore, plain/0 has no locus to -le the present suit as a perusal of the Agreement to Sell dated 23.01.2003 Ex.D2 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 shows that the same has been signed by the plain/0, defendant No.1, and their third brother, namely, Gian Chand. Learned Courts below have also found that all the three brothers are “In possession of their respec2ve por2ons and speci9c por2on with boundaries was agreed to be sold by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 in the presence of the plain28 himself.” In fact, plain/0 in his cross-examina/on as PW3 has admiBed that he has no share in the property sold by defendant No.1. This fact has also not been denied by ld. counsel for the plain/0 during the course of arguments. From this fact itself, it is clear that Agreement to Sell was executed in the presence of the plain/0 himself and rather, with his consent. 16. It may also be pointed out that another plain/0 witness namely PW4 Anil Kumar has admiBed in his evidence that in the por/on which was purchased by defendant No.2, there is a wall on the side of DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 9 - the property. Meaning thereby, that property stood par//oned between the par/es. PW4 has further admiBed that all the three brothers have been running their businesses separately for the past 20-25 years. 17. What to say, even the third brother of the plain/0, namely PW8 Gian Chand, who is one of the co-sharers of the suit property, has inter alia admiBed in his evidence that all three brothers had separate mess; separate water connec/on; and separate electricity connec/on; and running their separate businesses through three separate shops which are separated by par//on of walls. 18. From the above facts, it would appear that the suit property already stood orally par//oned between the par/es; and which oral par//on had also been acted upon. Thus, plain/0 had no locus standi to -le the present suit. This fact was further buBressed from the Site Plan Ex.D2/A produced by defendant No.2 from which it is proved that suit property stood par//oned. AdmiBedly, plain/0 has not produced any contrary Site Plan to controvert pleadings and evidence of defendant No.2. The Site Plan Ex.D2/A produced by defendant No.2 went totally unrebuBed, unchallenged and uncontroverted. Thus, as the plain/0 has himself admiBed in the Agreement Ex.D2 that defendant No.1 is an exclusive possession of his share, he is estopped by his own act and conduct from -ling the present suit. Therefore, plain/0 also has no right to restrain defendant No.2 from raising construc/on when he is proved to be in exclusive possession of 1/3rd share vide Sale Deed Ex.D1. DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 10 - 19. The suit is also bad for non-joinder of par/es as third co- sharer, namely, Gian Chand was not made a party to the suit. In any event, plain/0 is estopped from challenging the same as the plain/0 has signed the said Agreement to Sell dated 23.01.2003 as aBes/ng witness. No aBempt was made by the appellant to get compared his signature on the Agreement with his standard signature. Thus, plain/0 had failed to prove that the Agreement to Sell dated 23.01.2003 is a forged and fabricated document and does not bear his signature as contended. 20. Moreover, this Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Paramjit Kaur, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2520489 has held as under:- “B. Co-sharers - Exclusive possession - Law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court - Co-sharer in exclusive possession of a por2on of joint property can retain possession if it does not exceed their share, and such possession can be transferred to a vendee who holds the same rights as the co-sharer un2l par22on of the property. ” 21. This Court in Bhim Singh’s case (supra) has held as under:- “Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Sec2on 100 Speci9c Relief Act, 1963 Sec2on 41 Injunc2on suit - Permanent injunc2on - Co- sharer - Suit for permanent injunc2on restraining the defendant-respondent from raising any construc2on or challenging the nature of the suit property and further restraining respondent No.1 from aliena2ng speci9c khasra numbers and more than share in the land in dispute was dismissed - Challenged - Appellants have themselves DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 11 - admi6ed the factum of oral par22on and cul2va2on of separate shares by them - They have also admi6ed having made construc2on over the property falling into their share - The Courts below on apprecia2on of evidence have recorded a 9nding of fact that par22on of the Joint Khata pertaining to the suit land has already been e8ected and the plain28- appellants were in exclusive possession of their share which had fallen to them and defendant No.1 was in exclusive possession of his share out of the suit land - There is no material evidence on record on the basis of which the 9ndings of the Courts below could be challenged - Appeal dismissed.” 22. I also -nd no merit in the conten/on raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned First Appellate Court has failed to deal with the maBer properly as, a perusal of the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2013 shows that the learned Addi/onal District Judge, Amritsar has dealt with each aspect raised by the appellant in detail. 23. Relevant -ndings of the learned First Appellate Court as contained in judgment dated 30.11.2013 are as under: - “25. On a careful perusal of the abovesaid evidence led by the par2es, this fact stands established that there is no dispute between the par2es to the e8ect that the suit property was earlier owned by one Shan2 Devi, from whom the plain28, defendant No.1 and their brother Gian Chand purchased the same vide sale deed dated 16.1.1990. Admi6edly, sale deed dated 29.7.2003 has been executed by defendant No.1 regarding his 1/3rd share out of the suit property in favour of DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 12 - the defendant No.2, which has been challenged by the plain28 on the ground that same has been executed without geDng the joint property par22oned and further on the ground that the same is more than his share. 26. Admi6edly, defendant No.1 who sold the property in ques2on in favour of defendant No.2 was a co-sharer in the suit property. The grouse of the appellant-plain28 is that same has been sold by the defendant No.1 without geDng the suit land par22oned and as such the sale deed Ex.D1 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void. But the sale deed Ex.D1 which is for a valid considera2on cannot be considered to be illegal merely because of the reason that the property has not been par22oned amongst the co-sharers. At the most the defendant No.2 has become a co-sharer in the suit property. The next ground of a6ack of the appellant-plain28 is that the defendant No.1 has executed the sale deed Ex.D1 more than his share. But a careful perusal of the sale deed Ex.D1 shows that the same has been executed qua the por2on measuring 69 Sq. yards approximately. Admi6edly, share of defendant No.1 comes to the extent of 68.3 Sq. yards, which is quite equallent to the share of defendant No.1. 27. The main conten2on of the learned counsel for the appellant-plain28 is that the agreement to sell dated 23.1.2003 is a forged and fabricated document and it does not bear the signatures of the plain28 and the signatures of the plain28 have been forged by the defendant No.2 in connivance with his son. But a careful perusal of the agreement to sell Ex.D2 dated 23.1.2003 proved on the 9le by the defendant shows that it bears the signatures of Gian Chand, third brother of the plain28 and defendant No.1 a co- DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 13 - sharer to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property and the plain28 has also signed the plain28 as an a6es2ng witness. Plea of the plain28 is that his signatures have been forged. But no a6empt has been made by the plain28 to get his signatures compared with his standard signatures. On a careful perusal of the agreement to sell Ex.D2, it is crystal clear that all the three brothers namely Sarwan Kumar plain28, Parkash Chand defendant No.1 and Gian Chand were in possession of their respec2ve por2ons and speci9c por2on with boundaries was agreed to be sold by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 in the presence of the plain28. PW3 (plain28) in his cross examina2on admi6ed that he has no share in the property sold by Parkash Chand. Even PW4 Anil Kumar admi6ed in his cross examina2on that the por2on which was purchased by Chaman Lal defendant No.2 is a separate por2on and there is a wall on the side of the property which was purchased by defendant No.2 from the defendant No.1.” 24. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts, -ndings and legal posi/on. 25. In view of the same, no ground to interfere in the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, is made out. 26. Both the appeals, accordingly, stand dismissed on merits. 27. Pending applica/on(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 19.01.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos. 2593-2014 (O&M) and 3564-2019 (O&M) - 14 - DIVYANSHI 2026.01.22 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document