RSA-187- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 113 DESHRAJ BHAGWANA AND ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL 1. appeal, assail 2. the effect that along with in possession of Village Al of sale deed dated 11 entered in the revenue record. the effect that release void document and is liable to be set aside as the land in dispute had been sold by Hari Ram sought to the effect that defendants No.3 and 4 -2022 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-187- Date of decision: DESHRAJ VS. BHAGWANA AND ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. Appellant, who is one of the assailing concurrent finding recorded by both the Respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a the effect that along with proforma defendants No.5 and 6 in possession of half share each in land measuring 17 marlas situated in Alwalpur, Tehsil and District Rewari of sale deed dated 11.12.1989 and that they are entitled to get their names entered in the revenue record. A decree for declaration was also sought to the effect that release deed by Hari Ram document and is liable to be set aside as the land in dispute had been Hari Ram to the plaintiffs. A decree of permanent injunction was to the effect that defendants No.3 and 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -2022 (O & M) Date of decision:04.03.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENTS SUVIR SEHGAL one of the defendants, has filed the instant concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to defendants No.5 and 6, they are owners land measuring 17 marlas situated in Rewari (for short “suit land”) by virtue 1989 and that they are entitled to get their names decree for declaration was also sought to in favour of his sons is a null and document and is liable to be set aside as the land in dispute had been decree of permanent injunction was to the effect that defendants No.3 and 4 may be restrained from has filed the instant suit for declaration to hey are owners land measuring 17 marlas situated in by virtue 1989 and that they are entitled to get their names decree for declaration was also sought to null and document and is liable to be set aside as the land in dispute had been decree of permanent injunction was from Sheetal 2025.03.25 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh RSA-187- selling or alienating the suit land. 3. vide sale deed dated 11 the mutation entered in the revenue record vendors. T release deed sons Deshraj or interest in the l and managed to get suit. Upon notice, defendants No.1 the suit by taking various preliminary objectio suit land was owned by a number co-sharers plaintiffs document possession of the suit the release Defendants No. issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties support of their respective 10.12.2018, defendants District and Sessions institution of the -2022 (O & M) -2- selling or alienating the suit land. Pleaded case of the plaintiffs sale deed dated 11.12.1989 and became its owners. They could not get the mutation entered in the revenue record vendors. Taking advantage of the incorrect entries in the revenue record, deed dated 12.06.2012 was executed by sons Deshraj (present appellant) and Suresh Kumar or interest in the land. Alleging that the defendants collided with each other and managed to get a mutation sanctioned in their favour, plaintiffs filed the suit. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 4 filed the suit by taking various preliminary objectio suit land was owned by a number of persons sharers were necessary parties to the was specifically denied and it was averred document. It was claimed that the defendants are the co possession of the suit land along with others the release deed is a legal document and the parties are bound by it. Defendants No.5 to 11 were proceeded against issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties support of their respective case. After c 2018, Trial Court decreed the suit defendants, filed an appeal, which was rejected by the istrict and Sessions Judge by judgement dated 17 institution of the instant second appeal. s is that they purchased the suit land 1989 and became its owners. They could not get the mutation entered in the revenue record, which reflected the names of aking advantage of the incorrect entries in the revenue record, executed by Hari Ram in favour of his uresh Kumar, who have no right, title lleging that the defendants collided with each other mutation sanctioned in their favour, plaintiffs filed the filed a written statement contesting the suit by taking various preliminary objections. A stand was taken that the f persons, besides Hari Ram and all the to the suit. Sale deed in favour of the and it was averred that it is a forged t was claimed that the defendants are the co-owners and are in land along with others. The defendants asserted that is a legal document and the parties are bound by it. proceeded against ex parte. Trial Court framed issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, who led evidence in After contest, by judgement dated the suit. Deshraj, appellant, one of the which was rejected by the learned Additional udge by judgement dated 17.02.2021 resulting in the suit land 1989 and became its owners. They could not get the aking advantage of the incorrect entries in the revenue record, a in favour of his title lleging that the defendants collided with each other mutation sanctioned in their favour, plaintiffs filed the written statement contesting stand was taken that the and all the ale deed in favour of the a forged owners and are in defendants asserted that is a legal document and the parties are bound by it. ourt framed led evidence in ontest, by judgement dated of the dditional resulting in the Sheetal 2025.03.25 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh RSA-187- 4. show that land and he including the present appellant of the suit is his argument and its right perspective and 5. submission 6. 11.12.1989 Singh son plaintiffs the fact that m sanctioned favour of execution of the sale deed title or interest in the property and in favour o to get the sale deed plaintiffs specific khasra who are in construction in some portion have been -2022 (O & M) -3- Counsel for the appellant has argued that the show that Hari Ram, predecessor of the appellant and he executed a release deed dated 12 including the present appellant. He asserts that the appellant became owner of the suit land and plaintiffs are not entitled to decl argument that the Courts below have and its right perspective and have fallen in error I have heard counsel for the submission besides examining the paper-book. Plaintiffs have lead evidence and proved 1989, Ex.P-3, which has been executed by Mangal Singh and Hari Singh sons of Jit Singh. By virtue of Ex.P and possession has been delivered to the the fact that mutation on the basis of the sale sanctioned, Hari Singh executed a release deed favour of his sons Deshraj, appellant herein execution of the sale deed, Ex.P-3, stands title or interest in the property and he could not have executed in favour of his sons, who cannot claim any right in the the sale deed mutated in the revenue record would not divest the of their ownership in the property. It also stand khasra numbers were mentioned in the sale deeds and are in continuous possession of their respective share construction in some portion of the suit land have been passed by both the courts after proper appreciation of l for the appellant has argued that the revenue entries appellant, was the owner of the suit dated 12.06.2012 in favour of his sons . He asserts that the appellant became owner land and plaintiffs are not entitled to declaration of ownership. have failed to appreciate the evidence in error while decreeing the suit. eard counsel for the appellant and considered his book. Plaintiffs have lead evidence and proved sale deed dated executed by Mangal Singh and Hari . By virtue of Ex.P-3, suit land has been sold to delivered to them. Taking advantage of of the sale deed was neither entered release deed No.464 dated 12.06.2012 in sons Deshraj, appellant herein, and Suresh Kumar. Once the stands duly proved, Hari Singh had could not have executed a release deed cannot claim any right in the suit property. Failure in the revenue record would not divest the the property. It also stands established th mentioned in the sale deeds and plaintiffs, possession of their respective share, have raised of the suit land. The judgements and decree after proper appreciation of evidence led revenue entries was the owner of the suit sons, . He asserts that the appellant became owner ration of ownership. It failed to appreciate the evidence ed his sale deed dated executed by Mangal Singh and Hari land has been sold to advantage of was neither entered nor 2012 in nce the d no lease deed Failure in the revenue record would not divest the established that plaintiffs, have raised . The judgements and decrees evidence led Sheetal 2025.03.25 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh RSA-187- by the parties and courts below are 7. costs. 8. 04.03.2025 sheetal -2022 (O & M) -4- by the parties and do not call for any interference. courts below are affirmed. Appeal being devoid of merit Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed off .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No not call for any interference. Findings recorded by the ppeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed, with no order as to Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed off. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No by the order as to Sheetal 2025.03.25 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh