RSA-1531-2021 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 136 RSA-1531-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Iqbal Singh and others ....Appellants Vs. Partap Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate for the appellants. ***** HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral) The appellants/defendants No.1 to 3 have filed the instant regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the Sh. Partap Singh (plaintiff) that he is owner of land measuring 71K-17M (being 2/3 share) in the total land measuring 107K-16M, situated at village Mirje Ke, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, has been partly decreed. 1.1 A further challenge has been made to the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby an appeal filed by the present appellants (defendants No.1 to 3 in ANKIT 2026.07.13 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh RSA-1531-2021 (O&M) -2- suit) against the learned Trial Court judgment and decree, has also been dismissed. 2. Briefly, Sh. Partap Singh [predecessor of present respondents No.1(i) to 1(iv)] filed a suit for declaration that he is owner of land measuring 71K-17M (as noticed hereinabove) on the plea that the same has been inherited from their father Chanchal Singh, who in turn inherited the same from his brother Wasakha Singh son of Sh. Budh Singh son of Sh. Malook Singh. Another declaration was sought that abovenamed Wasakha Singh be presumed to have died as he has not been heard for more than seven years and that the plaintiff being the only son of Sh. Chanchal Singh, (brother as well as one of the superior legal representative of the above-named Wasakha Singh) is entitled to inherit his estate to the extent of 2/3rd share. A further prayer for possession of the aforesaid land by way of redemption was also made. 3. The present appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 along with defendant No.4 filed their written statement raising certain preliminary objections. Likewise the other defendants in the suit i.e. defendants No.8 and 10, defendants No.11 and 12, defendants No.15 and 16 as well as defendants No.18 to 22, also filed their separate written statements. 3.1 The plaintiff filed replication to the written statements filed by respective defendants. 4. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:- ANKIT 2026.07.13 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh RSA-1531-2021 (O&M) -3- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit is maintainable?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether defendants no.1, 2 and 4 are bonafide purchasers? OPD1, D2 and D4. 5. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of Dalip Kaur?OPD 6. Whether suit is bad for mis joinder of cause of action? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee ?OPD 8. Whether the suit is false and frivolous? OPD 9. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the court ?OPD 10. Relief.” 4.1 The parties led their respective evidence (oral and documentary), on the aforesaid issues. 5 The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.2017 partly allowed the suit and granted the following relief:- “25. As a result of my findings recorded on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff Partap Singh is hereby decreed partly for declaration, holding that Wasakha Singh is presumed to have been died issueless and wifeless long years ago leading to the devolving of inheritance of suit land measuring 107 kanal 16 marla in favour of the plaintiff Partap Singh and defendants through their fathers Chanchal Singh, Sawan Singh and Jawala Singh. Accordingly, plaintiff Partap Singh being lone son of Chanchal Singh, is held entitled to be owner in joint possession ANKIT 2026.07.13 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh RSA-1531-2021 (O&M) -4- of 1/3rd share of the suit land which is existing in the name of Wasakha Singh. Similarly, defendants no.1 to 10 Iqbal Singh etc are held entitled to be owners in joint possession to the extent of 1/3rd share through Sawan Singh and defendants no.11, 12, 15 to 30 are held entitled to be owners in joint possession of 1/3rd share out of the suit land through Jawala Singh as reflected in the head note A and B which is coming as the ownership of deceased Wasakha Singh in the revenue record as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, whereas relief qua redemption, partition and separate possession of the parties is left open to be decided by the revenue court, as such, the plea of defendants no. 2 and 4 being bonafide purchasers of mortgagee rights from Gulzar Singh etc and likewise sale of mortgagee right to plaintiff and others by LRs of the Jawala Singh is found to be pre-mature at this stage as the same could only be decided after redemption, partition of the suit land by the parties to lis. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File is ordered to be consigned to the Judicial Record Room, Ferozepur.” 6. Feeling aggrieved against the learned Trial Court judgment and decree dated 05.05.2017; the present appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, which has also been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2019. 7. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, present regular second appeal has been filed before this Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the paperbook with his able assistance. ANKIT 2026.07.13 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh RSA-1531-2021 (O&M) -5- 9. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has failed to dislodge the findings returned by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court. 9.1 Learned counsel appearing for the appellants is unable to show as to how the findings returned by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court are illegal or based upon misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence, so as to call for any interference by this Court. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this regular second appeal. 9.2 It is also not disputed that vide the impugned judgment(s) and decree(s), even the appellants have acquired share in the land in dispute. 10. Having considered the matter, I see no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 11. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. (HARSH BUNGER) 06.07.2026 JUDGE Ankit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ANKIT 2026.07.13 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh