IN THE HI 221 Smt. Saroj & A Smt. Mausam CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, this Court lay learned Courts passed by the affirmed in ap judgment and declaration an 2. the learned co 3. present suit No.1263 dated defendant No dated 24.02.20 plaintiff and t E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA & Another Vs. sam & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants. *** PTA, J. The plaintiff/appellant no. laying challenge to the concurre urts below, whereby vide judgment the learned Additional Civil Judge n appeal by the learned Additiona and decree dated 23.08.2014, t n and permanent injunction, has be The parties shall be referre d courts below. Brief facts of the case ar it for declaration and permanent ated 08.02.2008 (Ex.P1), executed b No.7 regarding the suit land and 2.2008 is without jurisdiction and n nd the result of collusion of defe D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-5621-2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA cate no.1, is in second appeal before current findings returned by the ent and decree dated 23.02.2012 dge (Senior Division), Loharu; duly ional District Judge, Bhiwani vide 4, the suit of the plaintiff for s been dismissed. ferred to as per their status before e are that the plaintiff filed the ent injunction that the Sale Deed ted by defendant No.8 in favour of and subsequent mutation No.651 nd not binding on the rights of the defendants No.7 and 8; and the 8 re he 12 uly ide for re he ed of 51 he he SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document alleged Sale D No.7 in favou subsequent m of the plaintif restraining the The facts as Ram who is was owner in coparcener pr namely Kesar Sumitra/ defen Devi contract (hereinafter re know that Su dated 8.2.200 vide sale deed has been go consideration sale deeds, an by way of the 4. appearance an on various gro le Deed No.39 dated 24.04.2009 avour of defendants No.1 to 6 t mutation No.672 dated 05.05.200 intiff; and further consequential r g the defendants No.1 to 6 from fu set out in the plaint are that D is husband of the plaintiff and fath r in possession of the land in disp r property in the hands of Magha sar Devi and from their wedlock, on efendant no.7. Said Magha Ram, af tracted second marriage with th er referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) on 7 t Sumitra got the land transferred .2008 and Sumitra further sold the s deed dated 24.4.2009. Thus, the lan got transferred by Sumitra i tion and legal necessity. As such, th and mutations registered on the b the present suit. Upon notice, the defen e and filed written statement den s grounds. In the joint written state 09 (Ex.P2) executed by defendant 6 regarding the suit land and .2009 is not binding on the rights al relief of permanent injunction further alienating the suit land. Defendant no.8 namely Magha father of appellant No. 2 herein, dispute. The land in dispute was gha Ram. He was having his wife k, one daughter was born, namely after the death of his wife Kesar h the plaintiff-appellant No. 1 on 7.7.2006.The plaintiff came to rred in her favour vide sale deed the same to defendants No. 1 to 6 e land which is ancestral property a in her favour without any the plaintiff challenged both the the basis of above said sale deeds, efendants No.1 to 6 put in denying the claim of the plaintiff tatement, the defendants no.1 to 8 nt nd hts ion . ha in, as ife ely sar 1 to ed o 6 rty ny he , in tiff to SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6denied that t the plaintiff w defendant no. denied that th the suit by st land from def sale consider mutation No.6 Since the pric No.1 to 6, fo possession. A admitting the 5. issues were fra fo hat the plaintiff was the legally wed iff was already the wife of one Jaipa t no.8 was incapable of having chil at the suit land was ancestral in na y stating that defendant no.7/ Su defendant No.8 vide Sale Deed No ideration of Rs.29,91,000/- with No.651 on its basis also sanctioned price of the land increased, so she , for a sale consideration of Rs. n. A separate written statement w the claim of the plaintiff. On the basis of the plead framed on 01.11.2010: - “1. Whether the alleged sale-de executed by defendantno.8 in regarding suit land and mutatio basis of said sale-deed and furth 24.4.2009 executed by defendant no. to 6 regarding suit land and m its basis, are illegal, null & voi binding on the rights of the plai note of the plaint, if so, to what ef 2. Whether the suit is not m form?OPD. Page 3 of 8 wedded wife of defendant no.8 as Jaipal. It was further asserted that children due to his illness; it was n nature. The defendants resisted Sumitra had purchased the suit d No.1263 dated 08.02.2008 for a ith delivery of possession and ned in her favour on 24.02.2008. she sold the same to defendants Rs.55,00,000/- with delivery of nt was filed by defendant No.8 leadings of the parties, following deed no. 1263 dated 8.2.2006 8 in favour of defendantno.7 tation no.651 sanctioned on the further the sale-deed no.39 dated dant no.7 in favour of defendants nd mutation no.672 sanctioned on void, against law & facts, not plaintiff, as alleged in the head- at effect?OPP. ot maintainable in the present 8 as at as ed uit r a nd 08. nts of o.8 ing 06 o.7 the ted nts on ot - ent SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. adduced by th the plaintiff an the plaintiff a plaintiff vide ju 7. 23.02.2012, and her mino said appeal Bhiwani vide j Appeal. 8. the Courts be bar to challen because admit by the defend It is submitted relied by the because in on parcener and any share in th 3. Whether the Civil Court has no the present suit?OPD. 4. Relief.” On the basis of oral a y the parties, the learned trial Cour iff and in favour of the defendants; i iff and against the defendants; an de judgment and decree dated 23.0 Against the above said , Civil Appeal No.164 of 2012/201 inor son-Harkesh through his mo al was dismissed by the learned ide judgment and decree dated 23.0 Learned counsel for the a s below have totally ignored the le llenge the Sale Deed by the wife in dmittedly the land is ancestral and t fendant No.7 without consideration itted that the wife can challenge the learned trial Court is not app n one case, it has been held that and in the second case, it was held in the property during the lifetime o s no jurisdiction to try and decide al and documentary evidence Court decided issue No.1 against ts; issues No.2 and 3 in favour of ; and dismissed the suit of the 23.02.2012. id judgment and decree dated /2013 was filed by the plaintiff mother/plaintiff. However, the rned Additional District Judge, 23.08.2014. Hence, present 2nd he appellants submits that both e legal position that there is no fe in the lifetime of her husband nd the same was got transferred tion and without legal necessity. ge the same and the authority applicable in the present case that the daughters are not co- held that wife is not entitled for me of her husband but it has not 8 ide SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document been stated th fraud and m findings are er 9. defendants No time of her m years old; wh further submit of the suit pr No.1 to 6 one No.7 by defen defendant No defendants No was entered submitted tha law. It is also p the suit land dated 08.02.2 defendant No. dated 24.04.2 be dismissed. 10. appellants. ed that wife cannot challenge the misrepresentation and without re erroneous. On the other hand, learne s No.1 to 6/respondents No.1 to 6 er marriage with defendant No.8 ; whereas the defendant No.8 wa bmitted that the defendants No.1 t it property. The same has been pu one year and 2 months after the sui efendant No.8. Even a mutation No.7 on 24.02.2008.After purcha s No.1 to 6 vide Sale Deed dated 24 red in favour of defendants No.1 that both the Sale Deeds were dul lso pointed out that the plaintiff lai nd by the defendant No.8 to defe 2.2008 (Ex.P1); and the Civil Suit ha No.7 sold the suit land to defenda 04.2009 (Ex.P2). It is accordingly pra ed. No other argument is the Sale Deed on the ground of out legal necessity. Thus, the arned counsel representing the to 6 herein submits that at the in 2006, the plaintiff was 30 was about 64 years old. It is .1 to 6 are bona fide purchasers n purchased by the defendants e suit land was sold to defendant on was sanctioned in favour of rchase of the suit land by the d 24.04.2009 (Ex.P2) a mutation o.1 to 6 on 05.05.2009. It is duly proven in accordance with f laid no challenge to the sale of defendant No.7 vide Sale Deed it had been filed belatedly when ndants No.1 to 6 vide Sale Deed y prayed that the present appeal is raised on behalf of the 8 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. perused the ca 12. laid challenge had sold the s At the very o 6/subsequent existence of l However the l plaintiff and t plaintiff name (Ex.P11) and t proven by the wife of defend the sale deed defendant No lifetime of the land in which therefore, cor No.8, had no having extrao complete conc that during th I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. By way of the present suit nge to the sale deed dated 8.2.200 he suit property owned by him to h ry outset, it may be pointed out t ent purchasers of the suit prop of legal marriage between the pl the learned trial Court concluded th nd the defendant No.8 was valid amely Jaipal had expired as evid nd the marriage between the plain the registered document (Ex.P9). fendant no.8 would assign no right eed executed by him as it is admi No.8/husband of the plaintiff is st f the defendant No.8, the suit of th ich she has no share, was not main correctly held that the plaintiff no right to challenge the said Sale traordinary right in the property concurrence with the observations g the lifetime of her husband/defen counsel for the appellants and suit, the plaintiff had inter-alia, .2008, whereby defendant no.8 to his daughter/defendant no.7. ut that the defendants no.1 to property, had questioned the e plaintiff and defendant no.8. d that the marriage between the alid as the first husband of the evident from Death Certificate laintiff and defendant No.8 was 9). Nonetheless, merely by being right to the plaintiff to challenge dmitted fact on record that the is still alive. As such, during the of the plaintiff in respect of suit aintainable. Learned trial Court tiff although wife of defendant Sale Deed (Ex.P1) on ground of erty of her husband. I am in ons of the learned Courts below efendant No.8, the plaintiff had 8 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document no right to ch was not within 13. No.8 had volu Deed No.1263 same by the p further sold b dated 24.04.20 came to be file 14. property was oral and docu learned trial C mentioned in ancestral in na partly self-acq Record, the s partly ancestra no.8 over suit rights in selling 15. dated 8.2.200 said Sale Deed o challenge the Sale Deed dated 8. ithin her legal capacity in doing so. Moreover, it cannot be lo voluntarily sold the suit property 263 dated 08.02.2008 (Ex.P1), and he plaintiff at that time. It is only ld by defendant No.7 to defendan 4.2009 (Ex.P2) i.e. almost 1 1/2 yea e filed belatedly on 15.04.2010. It was further alleged by was ancestral in nature. However, u ocumentary evidence produced on ial Court returned the finding that d in the main Sale Deed dated 0 in nature, but was of mixed charact acquired property of defendant No e suit property was reflected to estral and partly self-acquired. Abso suit property was not denied. As elling the same. It was further alleged by th .2008 was a forged and fabricated eed dated 08.02.2008 (Ex.P1) was d 8.2.2008,and that the plaintiff so. be lost sight of that defendant rty as owner thereof vide Sale and no challenge was laid to the nly when the suit property was dants No.1 to 6 vide Sale Deed years later, that the present suit by the plaintiff that the suit er, upon appraisal of the entire d on record by the parties, the that the entire sale property as ed 08.02.2008 (Ex.P1) was not racter being partly ancestral and t No.8. Even as per the Revenue to be a mixed character being bsolute ownership of defendant As such he was well within his y the plaintiff that the sale deed ated document. Admittedly, the was executed by defendant No.8 8 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document in favour of d marlas for a plaintiff was evidence was (Ex.P1) was ta in respect o defendants No defendant No consideration 16. or controvert explanation fo 17. 18. 16.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo of defendant No.7 in respect of la r a sale consideration of Rs.29,91 as merely a bald statement and was presented in support. As suc s taken as a bona fide document. N t of Ex.P1 could be proved. It s No.1 to 6 were bona fide purchas No.7 vide Sale Deed dated 24.04.2 tion of Rs.55 lakh. Learned counsel for the ap vert the above said evidence/findi n for the same. In view of the above, prese Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No of land measuring 79 kanals 15 9,91,000/-.The allegation of the nd remained unproven as no such the impugned Sale Deed No fraud or misrepresentation . It, therefore, followed that hasers of the suit property from .04.2009 (Ex.P2) forvaluable sale e appellants is unable to dispute ndings or give any satisfactory resent appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 8 SUNENA 2025.01.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document