IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2247 of 2018 Amarjeet Kaur …Appellant (Plain.ff) Versus Gurbachan Kaur …Respondent (Defendant) Reserved on: 18.03.2026 Pronounced on: 19.03.2026 Pronounced fully/opera.ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The plain ff is in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Addi onal District Judge, Moga, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed, and the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned trial Court, decreeing the suit of the plain ff for declara on and permanent injunc on, were set aside, resul ng in dismissal of the suit. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plain ff - appellant ins tuted the suit seeking declara on to the effect that she is owner in joint possession to the extent of 1/3rd share, i.e. land measuring 2 kanals 15 marlas out of the suit land measuring 8 kanals 5 marlas, on the basis of a sale deed dated 08.12.2000 executed in her favour by Harjinder Kaur. Consequen al relief of permanent injunc on restraining the defendant from interfering in her possession and from aliena ng the suit property beyond her share was also sought. The claim of the plain ff is founded on the plea that Baldev Singh, who was a co-owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the joint holding, had sold land to NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.19 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2247-2018 Harjinder Kaur, who in turn had transferred the same to the plain ff, thereby conferring valid tle upon her. 3. The defendant – respondent contested the suit and pleaded that Baldev Singh had already alienated almost his en re share much prior to the alleged sale in favour of Harjinder Kaur. It was specifically pleaded that out of his total share of approximately 15 kanals 1 marla, Baldev Singh had sold land measuring 14 kanals 13 marlas through various sale deeds executed in the years 1982–83, and thus, he was le: with only a negligible por on of land. It was, therefore, asserted that the subsequent sale in favour of Harjinder Kaur, and consequently in favour of the plain ff, was beyond the competence of the vendor and conferred no valid tle. The suit was also stated to be bad for non- joinder of necessary par es, namely other vendees from Baldev Singh. 4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed issues and, upon apprecia on of evidence, decreed the suit holding that the plain ff had become owner to the extent claimed on the basis of the sale deed in her favour. 5. However, in appeal, the learned First Appellate Court reversed the findings. The Appellate Court, a:er re-apprecia ng the en re evidence including addi onal evidence in the form of jamabandis and prior sale deeds, recorded a categorical finding that Baldev Singh had already alienated land measuring 14 kanals 13 marlas out of his total share and was le: with only about 8–8½ marlas. It was thus held that the sale deed executed by him in favour of Harjinder Kaur was in excess of his share and that Harjinder Kaur could not have conveyed a be>er tle than what she herself possessed. Consequently, the plain ff was held en tled, at best, only to the extent of the remaining share of the original vendor, and not to the extent claimed by her. The Appellate Court further held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary par es, as other vendees from the common vendor had not been impleaded, though their rights were directly affected. On these findings, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. 6. Assailing the above reversal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the plain ff had purchased the suit property through a registered Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.19 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2247-2018 sale deed and the muta on in her favour stood sanc oned, and therefore, her tle could not be ques oned. It has been further argued that the First Appellate Court has erred in relying upon prior transac ons, which were not properly proved in accordance with law. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, this Court finds that the controversy essen ally revolves around the extent of tle held by Baldev Singh at the me of execu on of sale deed in favour of Harjinder Kaur. The First Appellate Court, on the basis of cer fied copies of earlier sale deeds, sanc oned muta ons and revenue records, has returned a clear finding that Baldev Singh had already alienated almost his en re share and was le: with only a marginal extent of land. This finding is purely one of fact based on apprecia on of documentary evidence and the same has not been shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence. 8. It is a se>led principle of law that a vendor cannot convey a be>er tle than the one he himself possesses. Once it is found that Baldev Singh had already exhausted his share to a substan al extent, any subsequent sale beyond that share could not confer valid tle upon the vendee. The First Appellate Court has rightly applied this principle in holding that the plain ff cannot claim ownership to the extent of 2 kanals 15 marlas merely on the basis of a sale deed. 9. The conten on regarding muta on entries is also without any merit, as it is well se>led that muta on does not confer any tle and is only a fiscal entry for the purposes of revenue. 10. Further, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary par es also does not call for any interference. The plain ff sought declara on regarding specific khasra numbers forming part of a joint holding without impleading other co-sharers and vendees whose rights were directly affected. Any declara on granted in their absence would inevitably cast a cloud on their tle and lead to mul plicity of li ga on. The approach adopted by the First Appellate Court in this regard is legally sound. Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.19 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2247-2018 11. No substan al ques on of law arises for considera on in the present appeal. The findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are based on proper apprecia on of evidence and correct applica on of legal principles. This Court, in exercise of jurisdic on under Sec on 100 CPC, does not find any ground to interfere. 12. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Addi onal District Judge, Moga are affirmed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 19.03.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No Uploaded on.: 19.03.2026 Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.19 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document