IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 108 I. RSA-2727-2022 (O&M) Kandhara Singh …..Appellant Vs. Jarnail Singh (dead) thr LRs and Others .….Respondents II. RSA-22-2023 (O&M) Baljit Singh and Another …..Appellants Vs. Jarnail Singh (dead) thr LRs and Others .….Respondents Date of Decision.:21.01.2026 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Himanshu Puri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly, and defendant No.6 separately, have filed the present two appeals challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, whereby their appeals against the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit, were dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 13.05.2022. 2. The facts, as borne out from the record, are that Kartar Singh and Khajan Singh, sons of Ganda Singh, were owners of the suit land to the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.22 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2727-2022 (O&M) RSA-22-2023 (O&M) -2- extent of half share each. Khajan Singh died issueless. On his death, his half share devolved upon the plain;ffs to the extent of one-fourth share and defendant No.3 to the extent of remaining one-fourth share on the basis of a Will. Muta;on No.4370 was sanc;oned accordingly. Thus, the plain;ffs and defendant No.3 became owners to the extent of half share of the suit land. 3. Kartar Singh sold his half share in the suit property to Lal Singh (defendant No.4), who further transferred one-third share out of his half share in favour of defendant No.5 Paramjit Singh. Muta;on No.6216 was sanc;oned in this regard. Consequently, the plain;ffs and defendant No.3 con;nued to be owners of half share, as reflected in the jamabandis for the years 1982-83 (Ex.D7) and 1987-88 (Ex.D8). 4. However, in the subsequent jamabandi for the year 1992-93 (Ex.D9), the names of the plain;ffs and defendant No.3 were deleted without any suppor;ng document or order, and ownership of the en;re land was shown in the name of defendant No.5 to the extent of one-third share and defendant No.4 to the extent of remaining two-third share. The plain;ffs asserted that neither they nor defendant No.3 had ever alienated their half share, yet defendant Nos.1 and 2 began claiming ownership over the en;re land. Consequently, the plain;ffs ins;tuted the suit seeking declara;on of their ownership and consequen;al injunc;on restraining aliena;on. 5. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.4 expired and the suit qua him was dismissed. Defendant Nos.3, 5and 6 were proceeded ex parte. Only defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit, claiming ;tle solely on the basis of revenue entries in the jamabandi for the year 1992-93. 6. Upon framing necessary issues and apprecia;on of evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 18.07.2018, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.22 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2727-2022 (O&M) RSA-22-2023 (O&M) -3- holding the plain;ffs and defendant No.3 to be owners in possession of half share inherited from Khajan Singh on the basis of muta;on No.4370. Direc;ons were issued to the revenue authori;es to correct the revenue record accordingly. Contrary revenue entries and muta;ons in favour of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 were set aside and they were restrained from aliena;ng more than their lawful share. 7. Separate appeals preferred by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 were dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 13.05.2022, affirming the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved thereof, the present two appeals have been filed. 8. AFer hearing learned counsel for the appellants at length, this Court finds no merit in either of the appeals. The learned First Appellate Court has minutely re-appreciated the en;re evidence on record and recorded detailed findings, which do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 9. The Appellate Court correctly found that the ownership of Kartar Singh and Khajan Singh to the extent of half share each stood conclusively established from jamabandis for the years 1972-73 (Ex.D3) and 1977-78 (Ex.P1). The inheritance of Khajan Singh in favour of the plain;ffs and defendant No.3 was duly reflected in the jamabandis for the years 1982-83 (Ex.P2) and 1987-88 (Ex.P3) pursuant to muta;on No.4370. There is no document on record evidencing transfer of Khajan Singh’s half share in favour of any of the defendants. 10. The Appellate Court further rightly no;ced that although defendant Nos.4 and 5 were suddenly shown as owners of the en;re suit land in the jamabandi for the year 1992-93 (Ex.P4), such change was unsupported by any sale deed, order or muta;on qua the half share inherited from Khajan Singh. It is well seIled that revenue entries are NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.22 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2727-2022 (O&M) RSA-22-2023 (O&M) -4- merely fiscal in nature and do not confer ;tle unless supported by lawful transfer. 11. The conten;on that muta;on No.4370 had been set aside by judgment dated 30.11.1982 (Ex.D6) was rightly rejected. A plain reading of Ex.D6 demonstrates that the said suit filed by defendant No.3 was decreed on the basis of compromise determining shares inter se par;es, and muta;on No.4370 was never set aside. Documentary evidence must prevail over stray admissions, if any. 12. The plea that plain;ffs as sons of Warayam Singh, being nephews of Khajan, could not inherit Khajan Singh’s share as Kartar Singh (another brother of Khajan) was alive was also correctly negated. The inheritance in favour of the plain;ffs and defendant No.3 was not by natural succession but on the basis of an unregistered Will, as reflected in muta;on No.4370, which remained unchallenged. 13. The Appellate Court also rightly rejected the plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC. The earlier suit ins;tuted by defendant Nos.1 and 2 was only for permanent injunc;on and did not involve adjudica;on of ;tle. Hence, no counter-claim regarding ownership was required to be raised therein. 14. Similarly, the argument that the plain;ffs ought to have challenged the sale deeds executed inter se defendants was correctly repelled. Since those sale deeds pertained only to the half share of Kartar Singh and there was no proof of aliena;on of Khajan Singh’s half share, the plain;ffs were not required to challenge transac;ons beyond the vendors’ lawful shares. 15. The conten;on regarding limita;on was also rightly rejected. A suit based on ;tle is not barred by limita;on so long as the plain;ffs’ ;tle subsists and has not been ex;nguished in accordance with law. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.22 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2727-2022 (O&M) RSA-22-2023 (O&M) -5- 16. The plea that the suit was not maintainable due to dismissal against deceased defendant No.4 is equally untenable. Other defendants claiming through him were already on record and contes;ng the suit. The chain of ;tle was duly established through documentary evidence. 17. The findings returned by both the Courts below are concurrent, well-reasoned and based on proper apprecia;on of documentary and oral evidence. In second appeal, this Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the same are shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence, which is not the case herein. 18. As such, finding no substan;al ques;on of law arising for considera;on, both the appeals are held to be devoid of any merit and are hereby dismissed. 19. All the pending miscellaneous applica;ons, if any, also stand disposed of. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the connected case file. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE January 21, 2026 Nee;ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.22 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document