RSA-2571-1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. RSA-2571 Mukhtiar Kaur Dalip Singh and Others 2. RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Dalip Singh and Others 3. RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Sadhu Singh 4. RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Dalip Singh and Others 5. RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Sadhu Singh 1997 (O&M) and connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Reserved on: Date of Decision : 2571-1997 (O&M) VERSUS Dalip Singh and Others 2572-1997 (O&M) VERSUS Dalip Singh and Others 2573-1995 (O&M) VERSUS 2573-1997 (O&M) VERSUS Dalip Singh and Others 2574-1995 (O&M) VERSUS -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:-26.08.2025 Date of Decision : 04.09.2025 ....Appellant ....Respondents ....Appellant ....Respondents ....Appellant ....Respondents ....Appellant ....Respondents ....Appellant ....Respondents TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 6. RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Dalip Singh and Others 7. RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Balbir Singh 8. RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Balbir Singh 9. RSA-3116 Dalip Singh and Another Mukhtiar Kaur and Others 10. RSA-311 Dalip Singh and Another Mukhtiar Kaur and Others 11. RSA-3194 Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur and Others 1997 (O&M) and connected cases 2574-1997 (O&M) VERSUS Dalip Singh and Others 2575-1995 (O&M) VERSUS 2576-1995 (O&M) VERSUS 3116-1997 (O&M) and Another VERSUS Mukhtiar Kaur and Others 3118-1997 (O&M) and Another VERSUS r and Others 3194-1997 (O&M) and Others VERSUS Mukhtiar Kaur and Others -2- ....Appellant ....Respondents ....Appellant ....Respondent ....Appellant ....Respondent ....Appellants ....Respondents ....Appellants ....Respondents ....Appellants ....Respondents TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate For the appellants in RSA Nos 2573 For respondent No.1 in RSA Nos 3194 Mr. Kanwal Ms. Sheena D In RSA Nos 3194 MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. The by both sides. P Second Appeals concurrent findings of both the C the Wills and the consent decree of 1979, while the defendants and Others have filed 1997, 2572-1997 2576-1995, challenging the declaration of the property as ancestral to the extent recorded by the Court. As all sets of appeals arise out of common judgments and decrees of the learned trial Court and the same, they are being disposed of by Brief Facts 2. Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, sons of Bakhtawar Singh, instituted seeking declaration that the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas, 0 bighas 13 biswas, situated in village Langrian, was ancestral c 1997 (O&M) and connected cases HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate and Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate For the appellants in RSA Nos-2571 2573-1995, 2573-1997, 2574-1995, 2574 For respondent No.1 in RSA Nos-3116 3194-1997. Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate for the appellants In RSA Nos-3116-1997, 3118-1997 and 3194-1997. -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. The batch of above-numbered Regular Second Appeals has been filed Plaintiffs-Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh ppeals bearing Nos. 3116-1997, 3118 concurrent findings of both the Courts below insofar as they upheld the validity of and the consent decree of 1979, while the defendants have filed eight Regular Second A 1997, 2573-1995, 2573-1997, 2574 challenging the declaration of the property as ancestral to the extent recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the sets of appeals arise out of common judgments and decrees of the ourt and learned First Appellate C , they are being disposed of by this common judgment Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, sons of Bakhtawar Singh, instituted seeking declaration that the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas, 0 bighas 13 biswas, situated in village Langrian, was ancestral c -3- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU 2571-1997, 2572-1997, 1995, 2574-1997 and 3116-1997, 3118-1997 and ahiya, Advocate for the appellants 1997 and Regular Second Appeals has been filed Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh have filed three Regular 1997, 3118-1997, 3194-1997 against ourts below insofar as they upheld the validity of and the consent decree of 1979, while the defendants-Mukhtiar Kaur Regular Second Appeals bearing Nos. RSA-2571 1997, 2574-1995, 2574-1997, 2575-1995, challenging the declaration of the property as ancestral to the extent ourt and affirmed by the learned First Appellate sets of appeals arise out of common judgments and decrees of the Court, and the property involved is common judgment of mine. Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, sons of Bakhtawar Singh, instituted suit seeking declaration that the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas, 0–1 biswa and 15 bighas 13 biswas, situated in village Langrian, was ancestral coparcenary property Regular Second Appeals has been filed three Regular against the ourts below insofar as they upheld the validity of Mukhtiar Kaur 2571- 1995, challenging the declaration of the property as ancestral to the extent Appellate sets of appeals arise out of common judgments and decrees of the ourt, and the property involved is suit 1 biswa and 15 oparcenary property TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 in the hands of their father, Bakhtawar Singh, and as such they had acquired rights therein by birth as his sons and coparceners. They further prayed that 5.6.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh and by his wife Bhagwan Kaur in their daughter Mukhtiar Kaur were 27.1.1979 suffered by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur was ineffective and not bi 3. Mukhtiar Kaur, the contesting defendant, resisted the claim by asserting that the land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas had been purchased by her mother Bhagwan Kaur under sale deed Ex.D1 dated 13.6.1955 and was her self acquired property, in which further relied upon the registered decree of 1979 as validly conferring exclusive rights upon her. 4. Mukhtiar Kaur, defendant, also filed suit no.744 again and others for permanent possession of the plaintiffs plaint on the grounds that land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas was owned by Smt.Bhagwan Kaur, mother of the plaintiff, while Bakhatawar Singh, owned 10 bighas 12 biswas of land and same was given to the plaintiff in settlement. The plaintiff which Bhagwan Kaur and Bakhtawar Singh appeared and filed written statement admitting her claim. The suit was decreed and on the basis of decree no.1064 and 1065 were sa in possession of the land in dispute as owner. right or title threatened to dispossess her, hence the suit. 1997 (O&M) and connected cases in the hands of their father, Bakhtawar Singh, and as such they had acquired rights therein by birth as his sons and coparceners. They further prayed that 5.6.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh and by his wife Bhagwan Kaur in their daughter Mukhtiar Kaur were invalid, and that the consent decree dated 27.1.1979 suffered by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur was ineffective and not binding upon them as coparceners. Mukhtiar Kaur, the contesting defendant, resisted the claim by asserting that the land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas had been purchased by her mother Bhagwan Kaur under sale deed Ex.D1 dated 13.6.1955 and was her self acquired property, in which the plaintiffs could claim no coparcenary rights. She further relied upon the registered Wills of 5.6.1974 and the subsequent consent decree of 1979 as validly conferring exclusive rights upon her. Mukhtiar Kaur, defendant, also filed suit no.744 again permanent injunction restraining the defendants possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, fully described in heading of the the grounds that land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas was owned by Smt.Bhagwan Kaur, mother of the plaintiff, while Bakhatawar Singh, owned 10 bighas 12 biswas of land and same was given to the plaintiff in The plaintiff-Mukhtiar Kaur filed suit on basis of family settlement in which Bhagwan Kaur and Bakhtawar Singh appeared and filed written statement admitting her claim. The suit was decreed and on the basis of decree no.1064 and 1065 were sanctioned in favour of plaintiff in possession of the land in dispute as owner. threatened to dispossess her, hence the suit. -4- in the hands of their father, Bakhtawar Singh, and as such they had acquired rights therein by birth as his sons and coparceners. They further prayed that Wills dated 5.6.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh and by his wife Bhagwan Kaur in favour of , and that the consent decree dated 27.1.1979 suffered by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar nding upon them as coparceners. Mukhtiar Kaur, the contesting defendant, resisted the claim by asserting that the land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas had been purchased by her mother Bhagwan Kaur under sale deed Ex.D1 dated 13.6.1955 and was her self the plaintiffs could claim no coparcenary rights. She of 5.6.1974 and the subsequent consent decree of 1979 as validly conferring exclusive rights upon her. Mukhtiar Kaur, defendant, also filed suit no.744 against Dalip Singh injunction restraining the defendants from interfering , fully described in heading of the the grounds that land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas was owned by Smt.Bhagwan Kaur, mother of the plaintiff, while Bakhatawar Singh, her father owned 10 bighas 12 biswas of land and same was given to the plaintiff in a family filed suit on basis of family settlement in which Bhagwan Kaur and Bakhtawar Singh appeared and filed written statement admitting her claim. The suit was decreed and on the basis of decree, mutations nctioned in favour of plaintiff and since then plaintiff in possession of the land in dispute as owner. However, defendants without any threatened to dispossess her, hence the suit. in the hands of their father, Bakhtawar Singh, and as such they had acquired rights dated favour of , and that the consent decree dated 27.1.1979 suffered by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar Mukhtiar Kaur, the contesting defendant, resisted the claim by asserting that the land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas had been purchased by her mother Bhagwan Kaur under sale deed Ex.D1 dated 13.6.1955 and was her self- the plaintiffs could claim no coparcenary rights. She of 5.6.1974 and the subsequent consent st Dalip Singh from interfering in , fully described in heading of the the grounds that land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas was owned by her father a family filed suit on basis of family settlement in which Bhagwan Kaur and Bakhtawar Singh appeared and filed written statement mutations and since then plaintiff is ndants without any TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 5. Defendants in the written statement denied the allegations of the plaintiff and inter land in dispute, rather it was after the death Bakhatawar Singh that defendants No.1 & 2 were in possession of the land in dispute. It was further claimed that the land in dispute was co Bakhatawar Singh and his sons Dalip Singh, Bhag Singh and defendants were co sharers in it and family settlement. It was further allege and the decree is null and void as regards the rights of the alleged that the mutations and as such this suit was liable to 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1) plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3? OPP 2) illegal and inoperative? OPP 3) 4) 5) by adverse possession? OPD 6) dated 05.06.74 in favour of Mukhitar 7) 05.06.74 in favour of defendant No.1? OPD 1997 (O&M) and connected cases Defendants in the written statement denied the allegations of the inter alia pleaded that plaintiff never remained in possession of the land in dispute, rather it was after the death Bakhatawar Singh that defendants No.1 & 2 were in possession of the land in dispute. It was further claimed that the land in dispute was coparcenary property of the joint Hindu family consisting Bakhatawar Singh and his sons Dalip Singh, Bhag Singh and defendants were co sharers in it and as such Bakhatawar Singh had no right to transfer the same in family settlement. It was further alleged that infact no family settlement took place and the decree is null and void as regards the rights of the that the defendants had already filed suit challenging the decree and mutations and as such this suit was liable to be stayed. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- Whether the land in suit is ancestral coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3? OPP Whether the judgment and decree dated illegal and inoperative? OPP Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP Whether the defendant No.1 has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession? OPD-1. Whether Bakhatawar Singh executed a valid registered Will dated 05.06.74 in favour of Mukhitar Whether Bhagwan Kaur executed valid registered Will dated 05.06.74 in favour of defendant No.1? OPD -5- Defendants in the written statement denied the allegations of the alia pleaded that plaintiff never remained in possession of the land in dispute, rather it was after the death Bakhatawar Singh that defendants No.1 & 2 were in possession of the land in dispute. It was further claimed that the parcenary property of the joint Hindu family consisting Bakhatawar Singh and his sons Dalip Singh, Bhag Singh and defendants were co such Bakhatawar Singh had no right to transfer the same in infact no family settlement took place and the decree is null and void as regards the rights of the plaintiff. It was further defendants had already filed suit challenging the decree and be stayed. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the Whether the land in suit is ancestral coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3? OPP Whether the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1979 are wrong, Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP Whether the defendant No.1 has become owner of the suit land Whether Bakhatawar Singh executed a valid registered Will dated 05.06.74 in favour of Mukhitar Kaur defendant No.1? OPD-1 Whether Bhagwan Kaur executed valid registered Will dated 05.06.74 in favour of defendant No.1? OPD-1. Defendants in the written statement denied the allegations of the alia pleaded that plaintiff never remained in possession of the land in dispute, rather it was after the death Bakhatawar Singh that defendants No.1 & 2 were in possession of the land in dispute. It was further claimed that the parcenary property of the joint Hindu family consisting of Bakhatawar Singh and his sons Dalip Singh, Bhag Singh and defendants were co- such Bakhatawar Singh had no right to transfer the same in infact no family settlement took place It was further defendants had already filed suit challenging the decree and From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the Whether the land in suit is ancestral coparcenary property of the 27.01.1979 are wrong, OPD Whether the defendant No.1 has become owner of the suit land Whether Bakhatawar Singh executed a valid registered Will 1 Whether Bhagwan Kaur executed valid registered Will dated TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 8) suit? OPD 9) own acts and conduct? OPD 10) OPD 11) mentioned in para No.6 of the additional objections in the written statement is hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988? OPD 12) 7. The parties have led their evidence. Findings of the Trial Court 8. In the 1 mentioned that No.744 of 29.10.92 18.08.89 (filed by Dalip As such, copy of this judgment and decree be also placed on the records of the case file, pertaining to suit No.744 of 29.10.92 judgment and decree be treated as pa 9. The evidence led by both the parties bighas 12 biswas and 0 Bakhtawar Singh, having been inherited by him from his father Dula Singh, who had died prior to the coming into force of th 1997 (O&M) and connected cases Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the suit by their own acts and conduct? OPD 10) Whether the suit is bad for non OPD 11) Whether suit regarding land meas mentioned in para No.6 of the additional objections in the written statement is hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988? OPD-1 12) Relief. The parties have led their evidence. Findings of the Trial Court the 1st paragaraph of the judgment of learned trial Court, it has been the judgment will dispose of two suits, No.744 of 29.10.92 (filed by Mukhtiar Kaur) was consolidat 18.08.89 (filed by Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh) As such, copy of this judgment and decree be also placed on the records of the case file, pertaining to suit No.744 of 29.10.92 (filed by Mukhtiar Kaur) judgment and decree be treated as part of said suit. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence led by both the parties came to the conclusion that the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas and 0–1 biswa was ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh, having been inherited by him from his father Dula Singh, who had died prior to the coming into force of the H -6- s have no cause of action to file the present Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the suit by their Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? Whether suit regarding land measuring 15 bighas 3 biswas mentioned in para No.6 of the additional objections in the written statement is hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988? The parties have led their evidence. paragaraph of the judgment of learned trial Court, it has been judgment will dispose of two suits, above said, because Suit was consolidated with Suit No.391 of Singh and Bhag Singh) vide separate order dated 21.3.94 As such, copy of this judgment and decree be also placed on the records of the case (filed by Mukhtiar Kaur) and this rt of said suit. after hearing the parties and appreciating the came to the conclusion that the land measuring 10 1 biswa was ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh, having been inherited by him from his father Dula Singh, who e Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The s have no cause of action to file the present Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the suit by their joinder of necessary parties? uring 15 bighas 3 biswas mentioned in para No.6 of the additional objections in the written statement is hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988? paragaraph of the judgment of learned trial Court, it has been , because Suit ed with Suit No.391 of vide separate order dated 21.3.94. As such, copy of this judgment and decree be also placed on the records of the case and this after hearing the parties and appreciating the came to the conclusion that the land measuring 10 1 biswa was ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh, having been inherited by him from his father Dula Singh, who The TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 Court held that the suit land measuring 10 bighas, 12 biswas alongwith 0 is the ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh, since the females cannot be coparceners of the coparcenary property an No.2 and 3 have got no right in the ancestral coparcenary property meansuring 10 bighas 12 biswas being 1/10the share o alongwith 0-5 biswas, Since Bkahtawar Singh alongwith the present plaintiffs, his sons, had got 1/3 coparcenary property, which was inherited by him from his father Dulla Singh had got right to deal with his share and interest by way of transfer or by way of testamentary disposit Act, so defendant No.1 has become owner to the extent of his 1/3 ancestral coparcenary property by virtue of testamentary disposition by way of registered Will dated 05.06.1974 and biswas of land, which is 1/10 share of 105 bighas 16 biswas still remains with the present plaintiffs in equal shares and the Will dated 05.06.1974 cannot be said be binding or operative qua the 2/3 coparcenary property. So far as the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas is concerned, the same was neither ancestral coparcenary property nor inherited by Bakhtawar Singh from Dulla Singh nor the present plaintiffs can b any right in the same. 10. It was further held by the learned trial Court that land bighas 13 biswas was the property of Bhagwan Kaur of which she was the absolute owner with possession to make disposition in the way, she like rightly executed a valid Will dated 05.06.1974 in favour of defendant No.1 has become exclusive owner in possession of the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 1997 (O&M) and connected cases Court held that the suit land measuring 10 bighas, 12 biswas alongwith 0 is the ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh, since the be coparceners of the coparcenary property an No.2 and 3 have got no right in the ancestral coparcenary property meansuring 10 12 biswas being 1/10the share of land measuring 105 bighas 16 biswas 5 biswas, Since Bkahtawar Singh ith the present plaintiffs, his sons, had got 1/3 coparcenary property, which was inherited by him from his father Dulla Singh had got right to deal with his share and interest by way of transfer or by way of testamentary disposition as per the provisions of Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act, so defendant No.1 has become owner to the extent of his 1/3 ancestral coparcenary property by virtue of testamentary disposition by way of registered Will dated 05.06.1974 and the remaining 2/3 biswas of land, which is 1/10 share of 105 bighas 16 biswas still remains with the present plaintiffs in equal shares and the Will dated 05.06.1974 cannot be said binding or operative qua the 2/3rd share of t coparcenary property. So far as the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas is concerned, the same was neither ancestral coparcenary property nor inherited by Bakhtawar Singh from Dulla Singh nor the present plaintiffs can b any right in the same. It was further held by the learned trial Court that land bighas 13 biswas was the property of Bhagwan Kaur of which she was the absolute owner with possession to make disposition in the way, she like rightly executed a valid Will dated 05.06.1974 in favour of defendant No.1 has become exclusive owner in possession of the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 -7- Court held that the suit land measuring 10 bighas, 12 biswas alongwith 0-5 biswa is the ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh, since the be coparceners of the coparcenary property and as such, defendants No.2 and 3 have got no right in the ancestral coparcenary property meansuring 10 f land measuring 105 bighas 16 biswas 5 biswas, Since Bkahtawar Singh being Karta and coparcener ith the present plaintiffs, his sons, had got 1/3rd share in the ancesatral coparcenary property, which was inherited by him from his father Dulla Singh had got right to deal with his share and interest by way of transfer or by way of ion as per the provisions of Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act, so defendant No.1 has become owner to the extent of his 1/3rd share in the ancestral coparcenary property by virtue of testamentary disposition by way of the remaining 2/3rd share in 10 bighas 12 biswas of land, which is 1/10 share of 105 bighas 16 biswas still remains with the present plaintiffs in equal shares and the Will dated 05.06.1974 cannot be said share of the plaintiffs in the ancestral coparcenary property. So far as the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas is concerned, the same was neither ancestral coparcenary property nor inherited by Bakhtawar Singh from Dulla Singh nor the present plaintiffs can be said to have It was further held by the learned trial Court that land measuring bighas 13 biswas was the property of Bhagwan Kaur of which she was the absolute owner with possession to make disposition in the way, she liked and she has rightly executed a valid Will dated 05.06.1974 in favour of defendant No.1 has become exclusive owner in possession of the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 5 biswa is the ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh, since the d as such, defendants No.2 and 3 have got no right in the ancestral coparcenary property meansuring 10 f land measuring 105 bighas 16 biswas Karta and coparcener share in the ancesatral coparcenary property, which was inherited by him from his father Dulla Singh had got right to deal with his share and interest by way of transfer or by way of ion as per the provisions of Section 30 of Hindu Succession share in the ancestral coparcenary property by virtue of testamentary disposition by way of share in 10 bighas 12 biswas of land, which is 1/10 share of 105 bighas 16 biswas still remains with the present plaintiffs in equal shares and the Will dated 05.06.1974 cannot be said to he plaintiffs in the ancestral coparcenary property. So far as the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas is concerned, the same was neither ancestral coparcenary property nor inherited by e said to have measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas was the property of Bhagwan Kaur of which she was the absolute d and she has rightly executed a valid Will dated 05.06.1974 in favour of defendant No.1 has become exclusive owner in possession of the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 biswas out of the suit property, with which the present plaintiffs have got no right, concern or interest in any manner, whatsoever registered Will dated 05.06.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh in favour of defendant No.1 is also valid and legal to the extent of his coparcenary interest to the tune of his 1/3 plaintiffs are owners in joint possession with defendant No.1 to the extent of their 2/3rd share in the coparcenary property, except 1/3 which defendant No.1 has be along with 1/3rd observations, the suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed. Findings of the First Appellate Court 11. The learned First mentioned that the No.75/365, dated 08.08.94 dated 19.08.94-96 and C.A 79/369 dated 22.8.94 against the judgme Malerkotla. 12. The evidence, affirmed the findings of the ancestral nature of 10 bighas 12 biswas and 0 self-acquired character of 15 bighas 13 biswas in the hands of Bh also upheld the as a valid document of title. Mukhtiar Kaur, defendant is set aside to the extent that plaintiffs are owners of ½ share instead of 2/3 share in 1997 (O&M) and connected cases biswas out of the suit property, with which the present plaintiffs have got no right, concern or interest in any manner, whatsoever registered Will dated 05.06.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh in favour of defendant No.1 is also valid and legal to the extent of his coparcenary interest to the tune of his 1/3rd share in the ancestral coparcenary property and the present plaintiffs are owners in joint possession with defendant No.1 to the extent of their share in the coparcenary property, except 1/3 which defendant No.1 has become owner in joint possession with the plaintiffs rd share in 0-5 (0-1) biswas and 10 bighas 12 biswas. With the said observations, the suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed. Findings of the First Appellate Court The learned First Appellate Court, the judgment will dispose of above No.75/365, dated 08.08.94-96; C.A No.74/366 dated 08.08.94 96 and C.A 79/369 dated 22.8.94 against the judgment and decree dated 15.6.1994 of The learned First Appellate Court, upon independent appraisal of evidence, affirmed the findings of the learned trial C ancestral nature of 10 bighas 12 biswas and 0–1 biswa, a acquired character of 15 bighas 13 biswas in the hands of Bh also upheld the Wills as having been duly proved, and the consent decree of 1979 as a valid document of title. Learned First Appellate Court held th Mukhtiar Kaur, defendant, succeeds and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside to the extent that plaintiffs are owners of ½ share instead of 2/3 share in -8- biswas out of the suit property, with which the present plaintiffs have got no right, concern or interest in any manner, whatsoever. Similarly, by virtue of the registered Will dated 05.06.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh in favour of defendant No.1 is also valid and legal to the extent of his coparcenary interest to share in the ancestral coparcenary property and the present plaintiffs are owners in joint possession with defendant No.1 to the extent of their share in the coparcenary property, except 1/3rd share of Bakhtawar Singh, of come owner in joint possession with the plaintiffs biswas and 10 bighas 12 biswas. With the said observations, the suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed. Appellate Court, in para No.1 of its judgment judgment will dispose of above-mentioned four appeals i.e. C.A 96; C.A No.74/366 dated 08.08.94-96; C.A No.78/413, 96 and C.A 79/369 dated 22.8.94-96. All the appeals are directed ated 15.6.1994 of Sub Judge, 11 Class ourt, upon independent appraisal of learned trial Court with respect to the 1 biswa, and also with regard to the acquired character of 15 bighas 13 biswas in the hands of Bhagwan Kaur. It as having been duly proved, and the consent decree of 1979 Learned First Appellate Court held that appeal of , succeeds and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside to the extent that plaintiffs are owners of ½ share instead of 2/3 share in biswas out of the suit property, with which the present plaintiffs have got no right, . Similarly, by virtue of the registered Will dated 05.06.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh in favour of defendant No.1 is also valid and legal to the extent of his coparcenary interest to share in the ancestral coparcenary property and the present plaintiffs are owners in joint possession with defendant No.1 to the extent of their share of Bakhtawar Singh, of come owner in joint possession with the plaintiffs biswas and 10 bighas 12 biswas. With the said its judgment mentioned four appeals i.e. C.A 96; C.A No.78/413, 96. All the appeals are directed 11 Class, ourt, upon independent appraisal of ourt with respect to the nd also with regard to the agwan Kaur. It as having been duly proved, and the consent decree of 1979 at appeal of , succeeds and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside to the extent that plaintiffs are owners of ½ share instead of 2/3 share in TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas i.e. 1/10 and in 1 biswas i.e. 1/5the share of five biswas of land. The suit of the plaintiffs regarding the remaining land is dismissed because Mukhtiar Kaur has become owner of the same. The suit of Mukhtiar Kaur for permanent injunc been rightly dismissed because she is co injunction can be granted against Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, who are also co sharers. Thus, the remaining three appeals are without any merit and are dismissed. 13. Against the said concurrent findings, 11 Regular Second Appeals have been instituted before this Court, 8 by Mukhtiar Kaur being RSA Nos. 2571-1997, 257 1995, 2576-1995 3194-1997. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties 14. On behalf of the plaintiff had proved on record the excerpts as Ex.P1. The excerpts were prepared on the basis of an application dated 08.01.1992 moved by the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. After the said application was allo excerpts prepared. The production of said excerpts was never objected to by the defendants. Hence, the excerpts are required to be read in evidence. 15. Further, it has been contended that the plaintiffs had placed on the jamabandies for the relevant period so as to prove the nature of property. Hence, even if the excerpts are ignored, the Jamabandies can be considered purpose of determining the nature of property. 16. Furthermore, admitted the nature of property as ancestral in her cross 1997 (O&M) and connected cases the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas i.e. 1/10 and in 1 biswas i.e. 1/5the share of five biswas of land. The suit of the plaintiffs regarding the remaining land is dismissed because Mukhtiar Kaur has become owner of the same. The suit of Mukhtiar Kaur for permanent injunc been rightly dismissed because she is co-sharer in the land in dispute and no injunction can be granted against Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, who are also co sharers. Thus, the remaining three appeals are without any merit and are dismissed. Against the said concurrent findings, 11 Regular Second Appeals en instituted before this Court, 8 by Mukhtiar Kaur being RSA Nos. 2572-1997, 2573-1995, 2573-1997, 1995, and 3 by Dalip Singh being RSA Nos. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties On behalf of the plaintiffs, it has been contended that the plaintiffs had proved on record the excerpts as Ex.P1. The excerpts were prepared on the basis of an application dated 08.01.1992 moved by the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. After the said application was allowed, the learned trial Court got the excerpts prepared. The production of said excerpts was never objected to by the defendants. Hence, the excerpts are required to be read in evidence. Further, it has been contended that the plaintiffs had placed on the jamabandies for the relevant period so as to prove the nature of property. , even if the excerpts are ignored, the Jamabandies can be considered purpose of determining the nature of property. Furthermore, DW-1 Bhagwan Kaur ( admitted the nature of property as ancestral in her cross -9- the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas i.e. 1/10th share of 105 bighas 16 biswas and in 1 biswas i.e. 1/5the share of five biswas of land. The suit of the plaintiffs regarding the remaining land is dismissed because Mukhtiar Kaur has become owner of the same. The suit of Mukhtiar Kaur for permanent injunction has also sharer in the land in dispute and no injunction can be granted against Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, who are also co sharers. Thus, the remaining three appeals are without any merit and are dismissed. Against the said concurrent findings, 11 Regular Second Appeals en instituted before this Court, 8 by Mukhtiar Kaur being RSA Nos. RSA 1997, 2574-1995, 2574-1997, 2575 being RSA Nos.3116-1997, 3118-1997 Submissions of learned counsel for the parties , it has been contended that the plaintiffs had proved on record the excerpts as Ex.P1. The excerpts were prepared on the basis of an application dated 08.01.1992 moved by the plaintiffs before the learned wed, the learned trial Court got the excerpts prepared. The production of said excerpts was never objected to by the defendants. Hence, the excerpts are required to be read in evidence. Further, it has been contended that the plaintiffs had placed on record the jamabandies for the relevant period so as to prove the nature of property. , even if the excerpts are ignored, the Jamabandies can be considered for the 1 Bhagwan Kaur (widow of Bakhtaur Singh), had admitted the nature of property as ancestral in her cross-examination. The said fact share of 105 bighas 16 biswas and in 1 biswas i.e. 1/5the share of five biswas of land. The suit of the plaintiffs regarding the remaining land is dismissed because Mukhtiar Kaur has become tion has also sharer in the land in dispute and no injunction can be granted against Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, who are also co- sharers. Thus, the remaining three appeals are without any merit and are dismissed. Against the said concurrent findings, 11 Regular Second Appeals RSA- 2575- 1997, , it has been contended that the plaintiffs had proved on record the excerpts as Ex.P1. The excerpts were prepared on the basis of an application dated 08.01.1992 moved by the plaintiffs before the learned wed, the learned trial Court got the excerpts prepared. The production of said excerpts was never objected to by the record the jamabandies for the relevant period so as to prove the nature of property. for the widow of Bakhtaur Singh), had examination. The said fact TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 was also admitted by Satnam Singh (husband of Mukhtiar cross-examination. Further Jaswant Kaur daughter of Bakhtaur S admitted the factum of property being ancestral in nature. 17. It is further Wills were proved, for under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, must be proved by the evidence of at least one attesting witness, and in the present case though Gurnam Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, was examined, turned hostile and did not support the due execution of the and the Sub-Registrar are not attesting witnesses, and cannot substitute the statutory requirement. 18. It was further urged that the consent decree of 1979 could not bind coparcenary property, and being unregistered, could not op transfer of immovable property. Learned counsel further stressed that since Dul Singh, the father of Bakhtawar Singh, had died prior to 1956, the property inherited by Bakhtawar Singh was ancestral in his hands qua his sons under t Mitakshara law then in force, as laid down in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur (2020) 14 SCC 436 substantiate the ancestral character 19. Conversely, learned counsel for the de 15 bighas 13 biswas was purchased exclusively by Bhagwan Kaur, and no evidence had been led to show that it was purchased from joint family funds. been held by the both the Courts concurrently that suit property 15 B biswas, was never an ancestral property as the same was in the name of Bhagwan Kaur. 1997 (O&M) and connected cases was also admitted by Satnam Singh (husband of Mukhtiar examination. Further Jaswant Kaur daughter of Bakhtaur S admitted the factum of property being ancestral in nature. It is further contended that the courts below erred in holding that the were proved, for under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, must be proved by the evidence of at least one attesting witness, and in the present case though Gurnam Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, was examined, turned hostile and did not support the due execution of the Registrar are not attesting witnesses, and cannot substitute the statutory requirement. It was further urged that the consent decree of 1979 could not bind coparcenary property, and being unregistered, could not op transfer of immovable property. Learned counsel further stressed that since Dul Singh, the father of Bakhtawar Singh, had died prior to 1956, the property inherited by Bakhtawar Singh was ancestral in his hands qua his sons under t Mitakshara law then in force, as laid down in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur (2020) 14 SCC 436. The excerpt Ex.P1 and the mutations were relied upon to substantiate the ancestral character of the suit property Conversely, learned counsel for the de 15 bighas 13 biswas was purchased exclusively by Bhagwan Kaur, and no evidence had been led to show that it was purchased from joint family funds. been held by the both the Courts concurrently that suit property 15 B biswas, was never an ancestral property as the same was in the name of Bhagwan -10- was also admitted by Satnam Singh (husband of Mukhtiar-defendant no.1) in his examination. Further Jaswant Kaur daughter of Bakhtaur Singh has also admitted the factum of property being ancestral in nature. contended that the courts below erred in holding that the were proved, for under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a W must be proved by the evidence of at least one attesting witness, and in the present case though Gurnam Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, was examined, but turned hostile and did not support the due execution of the Wills . The deed writer Registrar are not attesting witnesses, and, therefore, their testimony It was further urged that the consent decree of 1979 could not bind coparcenary property, and being unregistered, could not operate as a document of transfer of immovable property. Learned counsel further stressed that since Dul Singh, the father of Bakhtawar Singh, had died prior to 1956, the property inherited by Bakhtawar Singh was ancestral in his hands qua his sons under t Mitakshara law then in force, as laid down in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur . The excerpt Ex.P1 and the mutations were relied upon to of the suit property. Conversely, learned counsel for the defendants argued that the land of 15 bighas 13 biswas was purchased exclusively by Bhagwan Kaur, and no evidence had been led to show that it was purchased from joint family funds. It has been held by the both the Courts concurrently that suit property 15 Bigha 13 biswas, was never an ancestral property as the same was in the name of Bhagwan defendant no.1) in his ingh has also contended that the courts below erred in holding that the 1872 a Will must be proved by the evidence of at least one attesting witness, and in the present but he . The deed writer their testimony It was further urged that the consent decree of 1979 could not bind erate as a document of transfer of immovable property. Learned counsel further stressed that since Dulla Singh, the father of Bakhtawar Singh, had died prior to 1956, the property inherited by Bakhtawar Singh was ancestral in his hands qua his sons under the Mitakshara law then in force, as laid down in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur . The excerpt Ex.P1 and the mutations were relied upon to fendants argued that the land of 15 bighas 13 biswas was purchased exclusively by Bhagwan Kaur, and no It has igha 13 biswas, was never an ancestral property as the same was in the name of Bhagwan TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 20. They contended that the evidence of the deed writer, the Sub admissions made by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in the earlier suit culminating in the consent decree amounted to proof of the same. 21. They further argued that suffered a consent decree dated 27.01.1979 in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur. The property of consent decree which was transferred to Mukhtiar Kaur was self acquired property of Bakhtawar Singh and 15 Bigha 13 Biswas vide Ex.D1 from Pritam Singh and has right to relinquish the same in favour of Mukhtair Kaur. Similarly, Bakhtawar had every right to transfer. Furthermo Ex.D3 and Bhagwan Kaur Ex.D2 shows that the consent decree was executed by their free Will. The plaintiffs/respondents challenge the aforementioned dec after a period of ten years, which is barred by the statute of limitations. Even otherwise, none of the executor challenged the same during their lifetime. However, once the property is established as non entitled to claim any share therein. Thus, both Bhagwan Kaur and Singh were able to legally transfer their land to Mukhtiar Kaur and consent decree executed by Bakhtawar legal and binding on all the parties 22. Learned counsel for the defendants further contended that regarding the remaining property measuring 10 Bighas 12 biswas and 0 learned lower Courts held that this is the ancesatral property, however, there is no evidence on record 1997 (O&M) and connected cases They contended that the Wills stood proved through corroborative evidence of the deed writer, the Sub-Registrar and the handwriting expert, and that admissions made by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in the earlier suit culminating in the consent decree amounted to proof of the same. They further argued that Bakhtawar suffered a consent decree dated 27.01.1979 in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur. The property of consent decree which was transferred to Mukhtiar Kaur was self acquired property of Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur. Bhagwan Kaur own 15 Bigha 13 Biswas vide Ex.D1-Sale deed dated 13.06.1955 which she purchased from Pritam Singh and has right to relinquish the same in favour of Mukhtair Kaur. Bakhtawar Singh’s property was also self every right to transfer. Furthermore, a perusal of statement of Ba Ex.D3 and Bhagwan Kaur Ex.D2 shows that the consent decree was executed by their free Will. The plaintiffs/respondents challenge the aforementioned dec after a period of ten years, which is barred by the statute of limitations. Even otherwise, none of the executor challenged the same during their lifetime. However, once the property is established as non laim any share therein. Thus, both Bhagwan Kaur and Singh were able to legally transfer their land to Mukhtiar Kaur and consent decree Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur is legal and binding on all the parties. Learned counsel for the defendants further contended that regarding the remaining property measuring 10 Bighas 12 biswas and 0 learned lower Courts held that this is the ancesatral property, however, there is no evidence on record to prove ancestral nature of property. Furthermore, the excerpt -11- stood proved through corroborative Registrar and the handwriting expert, and that admissions made by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in the earlier suit culminating in the consent decree amounted to proof of the same. Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur suffered a consent decree dated 27.01.1979 in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur. The property of consent decree which was transferred to Mukhtiar Kaur was self Bhagwan Kaur. Bhagwan Kaur own Sale deed dated 13.06.1955 which she purchased from Pritam Singh and has right to relinquish the same in favour of Mukhtair Kaur. Singh’s property was also self-acquired property to which he re, a perusal of statement of Bakhtawar Singh Ex.D3 and Bhagwan Kaur Ex.D2 shows that the consent decree was executed by their free Will. The plaintiffs/respondents challenge the aforementioned decree, after a period of ten years, which is barred by the statute of limitations. Even otherwise, none of the executor challenged the same during their lifetime. However, once the property is established as non-ancesatral, the plaintiff is not laim any share therein. Thus, both Bhagwan Kaur and Bakhtawar Singh were able to legally transfer their land to Mukhtiar Kaur and consent decree Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur is Learned counsel for the defendants further contended that regarding the remaining property measuring 10 Bighas 12 biswas and 0-1 biswa, both the learned lower Courts held that this is the ancesatral property, however, there is no to prove ancestral nature of property. Furthermore, the excerpt stood proved through corroborative Registrar and the handwriting expert, and that admissions made by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in the earlier suit Singh and Bhagwan Kaur suffered a consent decree dated 27.01.1979 in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur. The property of consent decree which was transferred to Mukhtiar Kaur was self Bhagwan Kaur. Bhagwan Kaur owned Sale deed dated 13.06.1955 which she purchased from Pritam Singh and has right to relinquish the same in favour of Mukhtair Kaur. roperty to which he tawar Singh Ex.D3 and Bhagwan Kaur Ex.D2 shows that the consent decree was executed by ree, after a period of ten years, which is barred by the statute of limitations. Even otherwise, none of the executor challenged the same during their lifetime. ancesatral, the plaintiff is not Bakhtawar Singh were able to legally transfer their land to Mukhtiar Kaur and consent decree Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur is Learned counsel for the defendants further contended that regarding 1 biswa, both the learned lower Courts held that this is the ancesatral property, however, there is no to prove ancestral nature of property. Furthermore, the excerpt TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 presented as evidence was not properly proven in accordance with law. Thus, in the absence of any such evidence regarding the ancesatral proof of the property, the plaintiff cannot claim any Findings of this Court and Conclusion 23. Having considered the rival contentions, the record of the case, and the concurrent findings of the courts below parties in the judgment of learned Lower Appellate Court opinion that the real controversy turns upon the nature of the suit property, namely, whether the same was ancestral in the hands of Ba rested their entire claim on the strength of the excerpt tendered in evidence as Ex.P1. Both the on the assumption that the excerpt was sufficient to prove property. However, such approach cannot be sustained in law. 24. It is true that as noticed by the application had been moved for preparation of the excerpt before the learned Sub Judge, Malerkotla, who this only demonstrates that the excerpt was drawn up on judicial direction; it does not elevate the document to the status of proved evidence. There is a material distinction between the preparation requires the author or competent revenue official to step into the witness box and depose that the excerpt has been prepared by comparison with the original revenue record. Unless such evidence is led, the e paper on the file. 25. Reliance has been placed upon Singh 2018 1 RCR Civil 844 1997 (O&M) and connected cases presented as evidence was not properly proven in accordance with law. Thus, in the absence of any such evidence regarding the ancesatral proof of the property, the plaintiff cannot claim any right in the same. Findings of this Court and Conclusion Having considered the rival contentions, the record of the case, and the concurrent findings of the courts below with slight modification in the share of parties in the judgment of learned Lower Appellate Court opinion that the real controversy turns upon the nature of the suit property, namely, whether the same was ancestral in the hands of Ba rested their entire claim on the strength of the excerpt tendered in evidence as Ex.P1. Both the learned trial Court and learned L on the assumption that the excerpt was sufficient to prove . However, such approach cannot be sustained in law. It is true that as noticed by the learned L application had been moved for preparation of the excerpt before the learned Sub Judge, Malerkotla, who directed the Patwari Moharrir to prepare the same. Yet, this only demonstrates that the excerpt was drawn up on judicial direction; it does not elevate the document to the status of proved evidence. There is a material distinction between the preparation of an excerpt and the proof of an excerpt. Proof requires the author or competent revenue official to step into the witness box and depose that the excerpt has been prepared by comparison with the original revenue record. Unless such evidence is led, the excerpt remains no more than a piece of paper on the file. Reliance has been placed upon 2018 1 RCR Civil 844, wherein Co-ordinate -12- presented as evidence was not properly proven in accordance with law. Thus, in the absence of any such evidence regarding the ancesatral proof of the property, Having considered the rival contentions, the record of the case, and with slight modification in the share of parties in the judgment of learned Lower Appellate Court, this Court is of the opinion that the real controversy turns upon the nature of the suit property, namely, whether the same was ancestral in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh. The plaintiffs rested their entire claim on the strength of the excerpt tendered in evidence as learned Lower Appellate Court proceeded on the assumption that the excerpt was sufficient to prove ancestral nature of suit . However, such approach cannot be sustained in law. learned Lower Appellate Court, an application had been moved for preparation of the excerpt before the learned Sub directed the Patwari Moharrir to prepare the same. Yet, this only demonstrates that the excerpt was drawn up on judicial direction; it does not elevate the document to the status of proved evidence. There is a material of an excerpt and the proof of an excerpt. Proof requires the author or competent revenue official to step into the witness box and depose that the excerpt has been prepared by comparison with the original revenue xcerpt remains no more than a piece of Reliance has been placed upon Sarabjit Kaur versus Tarlochan ordinate Bench of this court has held presented as evidence was not properly proven in accordance with law. Thus, in the absence of any such evidence regarding the ancesatral proof of the property, Having considered the rival contentions, the record of the case, and with slight modification in the share of , this Court is of the opinion that the real controversy turns upon the nature of the suit property, namely, khtawar Singh. The plaintiffs rested their entire claim on the strength of the excerpt tendered in evidence as ourt proceeded ral nature of suit ourt, an application had been moved for preparation of the excerpt before the learned Sub directed the Patwari Moharrir to prepare the same. Yet, this only demonstrates that the excerpt was drawn up on judicial direction; it does not elevate the document to the status of proved evidence. There is a material of an excerpt and the proof of an excerpt. Proof requires the author or competent revenue official to step into the witness box and depose that the excerpt has been prepared by comparison with the original revenue xcerpt remains no more than a piece of Sarabjit Kaur versus Tarlochan ench of this court has held TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 that unless and until excerpts are proved, these are is further observed in this judgement as follows “22. It is further important to note that High Court Rules and orders, under procedure for proving the excerpt, the " (v) Excerpt should be a true copy and should be proved remember that unless proved, the excerpt of the Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir is not evidence and must not be treated as such. The Special Kanungo or P Court always bring with him the original records from which his excerpt has been complied, so that it may be available for comparison. He must always be put on oath and be asked to say whether the excerpt is a true cop The excerpt must be a correct copy of such portions of the records as are relevant and not merely a summary or paraphrase. (vi) Comparison with original with the original records and date those thus compare." 26. In Sarabjit Kaur Banta Singh and others versus wherein it has been held as "11 The revenue excerpt is no part of the record of rights and does not carry any presumption of correctness. It has to be formally proved by examination in the witness box of the person who has prepared it on the basis of the entries in the various settlem 1997 (O&M) and connected cases that unless and until excerpts are proved, these are is further observed in this judgement as follows: 22. It is further important to note that High Court Rules and orders, under Volume 1, Chapter 9, Rule 5(v) and (vi), prescribed the procedure for proving the excerpt, the " (v) Excerpt should be a true copy and should be proved remember that unless proved, the excerpt of the Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir is not evidence and must not be treated as such. The Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir must, when he goes to Court always bring with him the original records from which his excerpt has been complied, so that it may be available for comparison. He must always be put on oath and be asked to say whether the excerpt is a true copy of a portion of the original records. The excerpt must be a correct copy of such portions of the records as are relevant and not merely a summary or paraphrase. (vi) Comparison with original-The Court should, as a rule, compare, with the original records some of the entries in the abstract and initial and date those thus compare." Sarabjit Kaur’s case (supra) further reliance has Banta Singh and others versus Phuman Singh and wherein it has been held as under:- 11 The revenue excerpt is no part of the record of rights and does not carry any presumption of correctness. It has to be formally proved by examination in the witness box of the person who has prepared it on the basis of the entries in the various settlem -13- that unless and until excerpts are proved, these are not to be treated as evidence. :- 22. It is further important to note that High Court Rules and orders, Chapter 9, Rule 5(v) and (vi), prescribed the procedure for proving the excerpt, the same are reproduced as under: " (v) Excerpt should be a true copy and should be proved-Court must remember that unless proved, the excerpt of the Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir is not evidence and must not be treated as such. atwari Muharrir must, when he goes to Court always bring with him the original records from which his excerpt has been complied, so that it may be available for comparison. He must always be put on oath and be asked to say y of a portion of the original records. The excerpt must be a correct copy of such portions of the records as are relevant and not merely a summary or paraphrase. The Court should, as a rule, compare, some of the entries in the abstract and initial further reliance has been placed upon Singh and another, 1972 PLJ 275, 11 The revenue excerpt is no part of the record of rights and does not carry any presumption of correctness. It has to be formally proved by examination in the witness box of the person who has prepared it on the basis of the entries in the various settlement records and not to be treated as evidence. It 22. It is further important to note that High Court Rules and orders, Chapter 9, Rule 5(v) and (vi), prescribed the same are reproduced as under: Court must remember that unless proved, the excerpt of the Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir is not evidence and must not be treated as such. atwari Muharrir must, when he goes to Court always bring with him the original records from which his excerpt has been complied, so that it may be available for comparison. He must always be put on oath and be asked to say y of a portion of the original records. The excerpt must be a correct copy of such portions of the records as The Court should, as a rule, compare, some of the entries in the abstract and initial been placed upon PLJ 275, 11 The revenue excerpt is no part of the record of rights and does not carry any presumption of correctness. It has to be formally proved by examination in the witness box of the person who has prepared it on ent records and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 jamabandis. It is an extract or synopsis of entries collected from diverse places and its value depends on how truly it has reproduced the original entries. If there is any doubt depends on how truly it has reproduced the original entries. particular entry in the excerpt, it will always be open to the Courts to have it removed by reference to the original records on the basis of which the excerpt was prepared." 27. Further, a Co (supra) has placed reliance on 2014 4 RCR Civil 397 " 16. In any case, the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove the nature of the property in dispute, but producing cogent evidence and the excerpts (Ex.P1) relied upon by the plaintiff is inconsequential because the person, who had prepared the excerpt, while appearing as PW1 has categorically stated in his cross which he has prepared this excerpt nor this record is with him and he was unable to say anything about the property being ancestral or nonancestral." 28. It is now well is not mandatory to establish the ancestral or coparcenary nature of the property; such character can alternatively be demonstrated through Jamabandis and mutation entries. This principle finds authoritative support in v. Om Pal & Ors 30.11.2018 by a co 1997 (O&M) and connected cases jamabandis. It is an extract or synopsis of entries collected from diverse places and its value depends on how truly it has reproduced the original entries. If there is any doubt depends on how truly it has reproduced the original entries. particular entry in the excerpt, it will always be open to the Courts to have it removed by reference to the original records on the basis of which the excerpt was prepared." Further, a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of has placed reliance on Gurmail Singh versus Rajbir Singh and another, 2014 4 RCR Civil 397, wherein it has been held that: " 16. In any case, the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove the nature of the property in dispute, but producing cogent evidence and the excerpts (Ex.P1) relied upon by the plaintiff is inconsequential because the person, who had prepared the excerpt, while appearing as PW1 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that he has not brought the original record from which he has prepared this excerpt nor this record is with him and he was unable to say anything about the property being ancestral or nonancestral." It is now well‑settled that preparation of an excerpt of is not mandatory to establish the ancestral or coparcenary nature of the property; such character can alternatively be demonstrated through Jamabandis and mutation entries. This principle finds authoritative support in v. Om Pal & Ors. RSA No.3565 of 2005 and 30.11.2018 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court -14- jamabandis. It is an extract or synopsis of entries collected from diverse places and its value depends on how truly it has reproduced the original entries. If there is any doubt depends on how truly it has reproduced the original entries. If there is any doubt about a particular entry in the excerpt, it will always be open to the Courts to have it removed by reference to the original records on the basis of ordinate Bench in the case of Sarabjit Kaur’s case Gurmail Singh versus Rajbir Singh and another, , wherein it has been held that:- " 16. In any case, the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove the nature of the property in dispute, but he has failed to prove by producing cogent evidence and the excerpts (Ex.P1) relied upon by the plaintiff is inconsequential because the person, who had prepared the excerpt, while appearing as PW1 has categorically stated in his has not brought the original record from which he has prepared this excerpt nor this record is with him and he was unable to say anything about the property being ancestral or ‑settled that preparation of an excerpt of revenue records is not mandatory to establish the ancestral or coparcenary nature of the property; such character can alternatively be demonstrated through Jamabandis and mutation entries. This principle finds authoritative support in case of Kuldeep Singh & Ors. and connected matter decided on ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the court held that jamabandis. It is an extract or synopsis of entries collected from diverse places and its value depends on how truly it has reproduced the original entries. If there is any doubt depends on how truly it has If there is any doubt about a particular entry in the excerpt, it will always be open to the Courts to have it removed by reference to the original records on the basis of rabjit Kaur’s case Gurmail Singh versus Rajbir Singh and another, " 16. In any case, the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove the he has failed to prove by producing cogent evidence and the excerpts (Ex.P1) relied upon by the plaintiff is inconsequential because the person, who had prepared the excerpt, while appearing as PW1 has categorically stated in his has not brought the original record from which he has prepared this excerpt nor this record is with him and he was unable to say anything about the property being ancestral or revenue records is not mandatory to establish the ancestral or coparcenary nature of the property; such character can alternatively be demonstrated through Jamabandis and mutation & Ors. decided on TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 “ necessary for the party which alleges the proves that a co suit. For establishing co old and new khasra numbers (pre and post consolidation of holdings) are properly con established beyond doubt. It is for this reason made in the High Court Rules and Orders for appointing a revenue official and get an excerpt of the revenue record prepared. No doubt, the pr excerpt and examination of the revenue official, the party must produce on file sufficient record allowing the Court to compare the records so as to identify the land copar 29. Legal Position is thus 1. in the revenue record, prepa only a summary document. 2. entries of jamabandi and mutation 3. evidence. Act Mutation entries, though not by themselves proof of title, can 1997 (O&M) and connected cases Before recording that the property is co necessary for the party which alleges the proves that a co-parcenary existed and is continuing till filing of the suit. For establishing co-parcenary property, it is necessary that the old and new khasra numbers (pre and post consolidation of holdings) are properly connected and identification of the land has been established beyond doubt. It is for this reason made in the High Court Rules and Orders for appointing a revenue official and get an excerpt of the revenue record prepared. No doubt, the production of the excerpt is not necessary but in absence of excerpt and examination of the revenue official, the party must produce on file sufficient record allowing the Court to compare the records so as to identify the land coparcenary property.’’ Legal Position is thus summarised as below Excerpt is only a consolidated extract of entries already existing in the revenue record, prepared for the convenience of the C only a summary document. Preparation of excerpt is not mandatory. entries of jamabandi and mutation and not necessarily an excerpt. Jamabandi and mutation records themselves are admissible evidence. Certified copies of jamabandis Act, 1872, are admissible to show title and nature of holding. Mutation entries, though not by themselves proof of title, can -15- Before recording that the property is co-parcenary, it is necessary for the party which alleges the property to be co-parcenary, parcenary existed and is continuing till filing of the parcenary property, it is necessary that the old and new khasra numbers (pre and post consolidation of holdings) nected and identification of the land has been established beyond doubt. It is for this reason, provision has been made in the High Court Rules and Orders for appointing a revenue official and get an excerpt of the revenue record prepared. No doubt, oduction of the excerpt is not necessary but in absence of excerpt and examination of the revenue official, the party must produce on file sufficient record allowing the Court to compare the records so as to identify the land which has claimed to be summarised as below :- Excerpt is only a consolidated extract of entries already existing red for the convenience of the Court. It is excerpt is not mandatory. Law requires proof of and not necessarily an excerpt. Jamabandi and mutation records themselves are admissible Certified copies of jamabandis under Section 35 Evidence admissible to show title and nature of holding. Mutation entries, though not by themselves proof of title, can parcenary, it is parcenary, parcenary existed and is continuing till filing of the parcenary property, it is necessary that the old and new khasra numbers (pre and post consolidation of holdings) nected and identification of the land has been provision has been made in the High Court Rules and Orders for appointing a revenue official and get an excerpt of the revenue record prepared. No doubt, oduction of the excerpt is not necessary but in absence of excerpt and examination of the revenue official, the party must produce on file sufficient record allowing the Court to compare the which has claimed to be Excerpt is only a consolidated extract of entries already existing ourt. It is Law requires proof of Jamabandi and mutation records themselves are admissible Section 35 Evidence admissible to show title and nature of holding. Mutation entries, though not by themselves proof of title, can TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 corroborate jamabandi entries to show devolution of property from ancestors. 4. and mutations make the evidence defective. revenue records are proved succession and continuity of ancestral property. 5 nature of the property, the procedure prescribed 9, Rule 5(v) & (vi) of and 30. In the present case, although jamabandies and mutations have been tendered in evidence are admissible but in order to prove the ancestral nature of property, the plaintiffs jamabandies and chain of succession and continuity of ancestral an excerpt be prepared and proved as per High Court underlying Jamabandis a a revenue official property from one generation to the next. court cannot confidently connect Without such evidence, the ancestral nature cannot be inferred merely from production of the documents. 31. Keeping in view law laid down above and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present cas 1997 (O&M) and connected cases corroborate jamabandi entries to show devolution of property from ancestors. Where original revenue record or certified copies nd mutations are duly exhibited, the absence of an excerpt does not make the evidence defective. What matters is that the underlying revenue records are proved by revenue expert to establish the chain of succession and continuity of ancestral property. However, where excerpts are relied upon to prove the ancestral nature of the property, the procedure prescribed 9, Rule 5(v) & (vi) of the High Court Rules and Orders to and prove it, must be strictly followed. In the present case, although jamabandies and mutations have been tendered in evidence are admissible but in order to prove the ancestral nature of the plaintiffs relied upon excerpt jamabandies and mutation which is not sufficient. To satisfactorily establish the chain of succession and continuity of ancestral an excerpt be prepared and proved as per High Court underlying Jamabandis and mutations be properly proved through the testimony of a revenue official, such as a Patwari or Tehsildar property from one generation to the next. In the absence of court cannot confidently connect the dots from earlier to existing holdings. Without such evidence, the ancestral nature cannot be inferred merely from production of the documents. Keeping in view law laid down above and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case where no proper procedure has been -16- corroborate jamabandi entries to show devolution of property from Where original revenue record or certified copies of jamabandis are duly exhibited, the absence of an excerpt does not What matters is that the underlying by revenue expert to establish the chain of succession and continuity of ancestral property. excerpts are relied upon to prove the ancestral nature of the property, the procedure prescribed in Volume I, Chapter the High Court Rules and Orders to prepare must be strictly followed. In the present case, although jamabandies and mutations have been tendered in evidence are admissible but in order to prove the ancestral nature of relied upon excerpt Ex.P1 and certified copies of is not sufficient. To satisfactorily establish the chain of succession and continuity of ancestral property, it is essential that either an excerpt be prepared and proved as per High Court Rules and Orders or that the nd mutations be properly proved through the testimony of such as a Patwari or Tehsildar, who can authoritatively link the In the absence of such examination, the the dots from earlier to existing holdings. Without such evidence, the ancestral nature cannot be inferred merely from Keeping in view law laid down above and keeping in view the facts e where no proper procedure has been corroborate jamabandi entries to show devolution of property from jamabandis are duly exhibited, the absence of an excerpt does not What matters is that the underlying by revenue expert to establish the chain of excerpts are relied upon to prove the ancestral in Volume I, Chapter prepare In the present case, although jamabandies and mutations have been tendered in evidence are admissible but in order to prove the ancestral nature of certified copies of is not sufficient. To satisfactorily establish the , it is essential that either rders or that the nd mutations be properly proved through the testimony of who can authoritatively link the such examination, the the dots from earlier to existing holdings. Without such evidence, the ancestral nature cannot be inferred merely from Keeping in view law laid down above and keeping in view the facts e where no proper procedure has been TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 followed to prove the excerpt as no revenue official was examined, and no foundational record was trial Court and the Lower A excerpt as conclusive proof of the ancestral nature of the property. Their findings to that effect are accordingly set aside. 32. Once the plaintiffs have failed to establish the ancestral character of the property, their challenge t necessarily fail. and his wife Bhagwan Kaur in favour of their daughter Mukhtiar Kaur. To the extent of the land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas, purchased under a registered sale deed, the property was clearly self competent to transfer it. upheld. Similarly, Bakhtawar Singh, being absolute owner of his share in remaining land measuring 10 Bighas to suffer the decree. The objection of the plaintiffs that the decrees were invalid for want of registration is without substance, for the decrees only recognised a transfer already made inter se the parties, and did not themselves create new rights. 33. With ownership already flowing from the valid consent decrees, no independent adjudication on the validity of the necessary. The Wills coparcenary in nature, a ground which has failed. The ownership of Mukhtiar Kaur stands secured on the strength of the decrees themselves. 34. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiffs Singh have failed to establish their plea regarding the ancestral nature of the properties in dispute. The excerpt relied upon by them is not proved in accordance 1997 (O&M) and connected cases followed to prove the excerpt as no revenue official was examined, and no foundational record was proved, this Court is of consider trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court fell into patent excerpt as conclusive proof of the ancestral nature of the property. Their findings to that effect are accordingly set aside. Once the plaintiffs have failed to establish the ancestral character of the property, their challenge to the consent decree dated 27.01.1979 must necessarily fail. The decree Ex.DW3/D was jointly and his wife Bhagwan Kaur in favour of their daughter Mukhtiar Kaur. To the extent of the land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas, purchased under a registered sale deed, the property was clearly self competent to transfer it. To that extent, the findings of both the Courts below are Similarly, Bakhtawar Singh, being absolute owner of his share in measuring 10 Bighas 12 Biswas and to suffer the decree. The objection of the plaintiffs that the decrees were invalid for want of registration is without substance, for the decrees only recognised a transfer already made inter se the parties, and did not themselves create new rights. With ownership already flowing from the valid consent decrees, no independent adjudication on the validity of the Wills were questioned only on the footing that the properties were coparcenary in nature, a ground which has failed. The ownership of Mukhtiar Kaur stands secured on the strength of the decrees themselves. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their plea regarding the ancestral nature of the properties in dispute. The excerpt relied upon by them is not proved in accordance -17- followed to prove the excerpt as no revenue official was examined, and no ourt is of considered opinion that both the ourt fell into patent error in treating the excerpt as conclusive proof of the ancestral nature of the property. Their findings Once the plaintiffs have failed to establish the ancestral character of o the consent decree dated 27.01.1979 must Ex.DW3/D was jointly suffered by Bakhtawar Singh and his wife Bhagwan Kaur in favour of their daughter Mukhtiar Kaur. To the extent of the land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas, purchased by Bhagwan Kaur under a registered sale deed, the property was clearly self-acquired, and she was To that extent, the findings of both the Courts below are Similarly, Bakhtawar Singh, being absolute owner of his share in 12 Biswas and 0-1 Biswa was also competent to suffer the decree. The objection of the plaintiffs that the decrees were invalid for want of registration is without substance, for the decrees only recognised a transfer already made inter se the parties, and did not themselves create new rights. With ownership already flowing from the valid consent decrees, no independent adjudication on the validity of the Wills dated 05.06.1974 is oned only on the footing that the properties were coparcenary in nature, a ground which has failed. The ownership of Mukhtiar Kaur stands secured on the strength of the decrees themselves. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiffs – Dalip Singh and Bhag have failed to establish their plea regarding the ancestral nature of the properties in dispute. The excerpt relied upon by them is not proved in accordance followed to prove the excerpt as no revenue official was examined, and no ed opinion that both the error in treating the excerpt as conclusive proof of the ancestral nature of the property. Their findings Once the plaintiffs have failed to establish the ancestral character of o the consent decree dated 27.01.1979 must suffered by Bakhtawar Singh and his wife Bhagwan Kaur in favour of their daughter Mukhtiar Kaur. To the by Bhagwan Kaur acquired, and she was To that extent, the findings of both the Courts below are Similarly, Bakhtawar Singh, being absolute owner of his share in the was also competent to suffer the decree. The objection of the plaintiffs that the decrees were invalid for want of registration is without substance, for the decrees only recognised a transfer With ownership already flowing from the valid consent decrees, no d 05.06.1974 is oned only on the footing that the properties were coparcenary in nature, a ground which has failed. The ownership of Mukhtiar Kaur Dalip Singh and Bhag have failed to establish their plea regarding the ancestral nature of the properties in dispute. The excerpt relied upon by them is not proved in accordance TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 with law, and both the trial court and the lower appellate court erre otherwise. The consent decree Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur consequence, Defendant measuring 10 Bighas 12 Biswas and 0 challenge raised by the plaintiffs stands repelled. Mukhtair Kaur over suit property, revenue record shows her possession over the suit property and accordingly she restraining the defendants from disposing her from the suit land. 35. Regular Second Appeals No 2573-1997, 2574 Kaur are allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court are set aside Appeals No. 3116 and Bhag Singh stand decreed and the suit filed by Dalip Singh 36. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. September 04, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 1997 (O&M) and connected cases with law, and both the trial court and the lower appellate court erre otherwise. The consent decree dated 27.01.1979 executed by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur is Defendant-Mukhtiar Kaur is held 10 Bighas 12 Biswas and 0-1 Biswa and 15 Bighas 13 Biswas challenge raised by the plaintiffs stands repelled. Mukhtair Kaur over suit property, revenue record shows her possession over the suit property and accordingly she is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disposing her from the suit land. Regular Second Appeals No.2571 1997, 2574-1995, 2574-1997, 2575-1995, 2 Kaur are allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court are set aside to the extent as detailed above . 3116-1997, 3118-1997, 3194-1997 and Bhag Singh stand dismissed. Accordingly, the suit filed by Mukhtiar Kaur is decreed and the suit filed by Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. , 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes. -18- with law, and both the trial court and the lower appellate court erred in holdin dated 27.01.1979 executed by Bakhtawar Singh and valid and binding. As a necessary held as owner of the suit properties 1 Biswa and 15 Bighas 13 Biswas, and the challenge raised by the plaintiffs stands repelled. Regarding possession of Mukhtair Kaur over suit property, revenue record shows her possession over the is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disposing her from the suit land. 2571-1997, 2572-1997, 2573-1995, 1995, 2576-1995, filed by Mukhtiar Kaur are allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the Lower to the extent as detailed above. Regular Second 1997 filed by plaintiffs-Dalip Singh dismissed. Accordingly, the suit filed by Mukhtiar Kaur is and Bhag Singh stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking d in holding dated 27.01.1979 executed by Bakhtawar Singh and valid and binding. As a necessary as owner of the suit properties , and the Regarding possession of Mukhtair Kaur over suit property, revenue record shows her possession over the is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction 1995, filed by Mukhtiar Kaur are allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the Lower Regular Second Dalip Singh dismissed. Accordingly, the suit filed by Mukhtiar Kaur is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document