RSA No. 2928 of 202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kuldeep Singh Mahender Kaur & Ors. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocate with Mr. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By way of present regular second appeal, plaintiff has approached this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction regarding the property in dispute filed by him was dismissed by trial Court on 24.10.2024 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 15.05.2025, th 2.1 Admittedly, one Harbhajan Singh was owner of the suit pro measuring 9 kanal 8 marla Kalan, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak. Plaintiff claims ownership and possession of the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed No. 1039 dated 18.05.1987 purported to be executed by Harbhajan challenged the judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 passed in civil suit No. 531 of 1986 titled as ‘Mohinder Kaur Vs. Harbhajan Singh’, whereby Harbhajan Singh suffered the decree regarding 67 kanal 03 marla land in favour of defendant No.1 and based upon that decree dated 10.12.1986, mutation No. 6126 dated 24.09.1987 was sanctioned. It is submitted by the plaintiff that Harbhajan Singh did not intend to include the suit land in the judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 and it was an inadvertent mistake, as he had retained the possession of the suit land, which he later on sold to plaintiff. It RSA No. 2928 of 2025 Page N: 1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2928 of 2025 Date of decision: 27.08.2025 Versus Mahender Kaur & Ors. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocate with Mr. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By way of present regular second appeal, plaintiff has approached this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit r declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction regarding the property in dispute filed by him was dismissed by trial Court on 24.10.2024 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 15.05.2025, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. Admittedly, one Harbhajan Singh was owner of the suit pro measuring 9 kanal 8 marla situated within revenue estate of village Kalanaur Kalan, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak. Plaintiff claims ownership and possession of the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed No. 1039 dated 18.05.1987 purported to be executed by Harbhajan challenged the judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 passed in civil suit No. 531 of 1986 titled as ‘Mohinder Kaur Vs. Harbhajan Singh’, whereby Harbhajan Singh d the decree regarding 67 kanal 03 marla land in favour of defendant No.1 and based upon that decree dated 10.12.1986, mutation No. 6126 dated 24.09.1987 was sanctioned. It is submitted by the plaintiff that Harbhajan Singh did not intend to include the suit land in the decree dated 10.12.1986 and it was an inadvertent mistake, as he had retained the possession of the suit land, which he later on sold to plaintiff. It IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 5(O&M) Date of decision: 27.08.2025 …Appellant …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA By way of present regular second appeal, plaintiff has approached this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit r declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction regarding the property in dispute filed by him was dismissed by trial Court on 24.10.2024 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate us affirming the findings of the trial Court. Admittedly, one Harbhajan Singh was owner of the suit property situated within revenue estate of village Kalanaur Kalan, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak. Plaintiff claims ownership and possession of the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed No. 1039 dated 18.05.1987 purported to be executed by Harbhajan Singh in his favour. Plaintiff challenged the judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 passed in civil suit No. 531 of 1986 titled as ‘Mohinder Kaur Vs. Harbhajan Singh’, whereby Harbhajan Singh d the decree regarding 67 kanal 03 marla of land, which included the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 and based upon that decree dated 10.12.1986, mutation No. 6126 dated 24.09.1987 was sanctioned. It is submitted by the plaintiff that Harbhajan Singh did not intend to include the suit land in the decree dated 10.12.1986 and it was an inadvertent mistake, as he had retained the possession of the suit land, which he later on sold to plaintiff. It Appellant Respondents By way of present regular second appeal, plaintiff has approached this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit r declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction regarding the property in dispute filed by him was dismissed by trial Court on 24.10.2024 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate perty situated within revenue estate of village Kalanaur Kalan, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak. Plaintiff claims ownership and possession of the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed No. 1039 dated Singh in his favour. Plaintiff challenged the judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 passed in civil suit No. 531 of 1986 titled as ‘Mohinder Kaur Vs. Harbhajan Singh’, whereby Harbhajan Singh luded the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 and based upon that decree dated 10.12.1986, mutation No. 6126 dated 24.09.1987 was sanctioned. It is submitted by the plaintiff that Harbhajan Singh did not intend to include the suit land in the decree dated 10.12.1986 and it was an inadvertent mistake, as he had retained the possession of the suit land, which he later on sold to plaintiff. It JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.29 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2928 of 202 is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is signatory to the sale deed dated 18.05.1987 in f in the revenue record showing defendant No.1 as owner and defendants No.2 to 4 as tenants are wrong, illegal and void, as they are stranger to the suit property and are not in possession there sanction the mutation in his favour based on the sale but they failed to do so. 2.2 With the aforesaid averments, plaintiff sought decree of declaration to the effect that judgment & 531 of 1986 and consequent mutation No. 6126 dated 24.09.1987 are null and void and not binding on his rights qua the suit Plaintiff further sought declaration that he is owne by virtue of the sale record showing defendants No.2 to 4 in cultivating possession are null and void. He also prayed for decree of permanent injunction to restrain defe from alienating the suit land in any manner. Plaintiff further sought mandatory injunction by directing defendants No.5 and 6 to enter and sanction mutation in his favour regarding the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 18.05.1987 and also to remove the names of defendants No.2 to 4 from the column of cultivation. 3.1 Defendants No.1 to 4 did not contest the suit and were proceeded ex-parte. 3.2 As per the stand put forth by defendants No.5 and 6 in their written statement, it is defe long; whereas, defendants No.2 to 4 are recorded as gair M batai. With this stand and refuting all the contentions of the plaintiff, these defendants prayed for dismissal of the sui defendants No.2 to 4 could not be removed from the cultivation column in the revenue record without adopting due procedure provided under law. 4. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence adduced by the parties was taken on record. Trial Court dismiss RSA No. 2928 of 2025 Page N: 2 of 4 is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is signatory to the sale deed dated 18.05.1987 in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff further contends that entries in the revenue record showing defendant No.1 as owner and defendants No.2 to 4 as tenants are wrong, illegal and void, as they are stranger to the suit property and are not in possession thereof. Plaintiff requested defendant Nos.5 and 6 to sanction the mutation in his favour based on the sale but they failed to do so. With the aforesaid averments, plaintiff sought decree of declaration to the effect that judgment &decree dated 10.12.1986 passed in civil suit No. 531 of 1986 and consequent mutation No. 6126 dated 24.09.1987 are null and void and not binding on his rights qua the suit Plaintiff further sought declaration that he is owne by virtue of the sale-deed dated 18.05.1987 and that entries in the revenue record showing defendants No.2 to 4 in cultivating possession are null and void. He also prayed for decree of permanent injunction to restrain defe from alienating the suit land in any manner. Plaintiff further sought mandatory injunction by directing defendants No.5 and 6 to enter and sanction mutation in his favour regarding the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 18.05.1987 and so to remove the names of defendants No.2 to 4 from the column of Defendants No.1 to 4 did not contest the suit and were proceeded As per the stand put forth by defendants No.5 and 6 in their written statement, it is defendant No.1 who is recorded as owner of the suit land since long; whereas, defendants No.2 to 4 are recorded as gair M batai. With this stand and refuting all the contentions of the plaintiff, these defendants prayed for dismissal of the sui defendants No.2 to 4 could not be removed from the cultivation column in the revenue record without adopting due procedure provided under law. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence adduced by the parties was ord. Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 24.10.2024 is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is signatory to the sale deed avour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff further contends that entries in the revenue record showing defendant No.1 as owner and defendants No.2 to 4 as tenants are wrong, illegal and void, as they are stranger to the suit property of. Plaintiff requested defendant Nos.5 and 6 to sanction the mutation in his favour based on the sale-deed dated 18.05.1987, With the aforesaid averments, plaintiff sought decree of declaration decree dated 10.12.1986 passed in civil suit No. 531 of 1986 and consequent mutation No. 6126 dated 24.09.1987 are null and void and not binding on his rights qua the suit land measuring 9 kanal 8 marla Plaintiff further sought declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land deed dated 18.05.1987 and that entries in the revenue record showing defendants No.2 to 4 in cultivating possession are null and void. He also prayed for decree of permanent injunction to restrain defendant No.1 from alienating the suit land in any manner. Plaintiff further sought mandatory injunction by directing defendants No.5 and 6 to enter and sanction mutation in his favour regarding the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 18.05.1987 and so to remove the names of defendants No.2 to 4 from the column of Defendants No.1 to 4 did not contest the suit and were proceeded As per the stand put forth by defendants No.5 and 6 in their written ndant No.1 who is recorded as owner of the suit land since long; whereas, defendants No.2 to 4 are recorded as gair Marusi tenants on batai. With this stand and refuting all the contentions of the plaintiff, these defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit by submitting that names of defendants No.2 to 4 could not be removed from the cultivation column in the revenue record without adopting due procedure provided under law. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence adduced by the parties was the suit vide judgment dated 24.10.2024 is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is signatory to the sale deed avour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff further contends that entries in the revenue record showing defendant No.1 as owner and defendants No.2 to 4 as tenants are wrong, illegal and void, as they are stranger to the suit property of. Plaintiff requested defendant Nos.5 and 6 to deed dated 18.05.1987, With the aforesaid averments, plaintiff sought decree of declaration decree dated 10.12.1986 passed in civil suit No. 531 of 1986 and consequent mutation No. 6126 dated 24.09.1987 are null and land measuring 9 kanal 8 marla. r in possession of the suit land deed dated 18.05.1987 and that entries in the revenue record showing defendants No.2 to 4 in cultivating possession are null and void. ndant No.1 from alienating the suit land in any manner. Plaintiff further sought mandatory injunction by directing defendants No.5 and 6 to enter and sanction mutation in his favour regarding the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 18.05.1987 and so to remove the names of defendants No.2 to 4 from the column of Defendants No.1 to 4 did not contest the suit and were proceeded As per the stand put forth by defendants No.5 and 6 in their written ndant No.1 who is recorded as owner of the suit land since rusi tenants on batai. With this stand and refuting all the contentions of the plaintiff, these t by submitting that names of defendants No.2 to 4 could not be removed from the cultivation column in the Necessary issues were framed. Evidence adduced by the parties was the suit vide judgment dated 24.10.2024 JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.29 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2928 of 202 after holding that sale impugned judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 and as such, the vendor of the plaintiff i.e. Harbhajan Singh was n time of executing sale has affirmed the aforesaid findings of the trial Court while dismissing the appeal on 15.05.2025. 5. Assailing the aforesaid learned counsel that mutation No. 6126, on the basis of judgment and decree dated 10.12.1986, was sanctioned on 24.09.1987, but prior to sanctioning of the said mutation, Harbhajan Singh had sold the suit pro marla in favour of plaintiff on 18.05.1987 for consideration of way, plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property for value and so, his rights are liable to be protected. 6. To the specific query put by conceded that no such plea of plaintiff being bonafide purchaser was taken before the Courts below. Even the judgments of Courts below would reveal that nowhere it was pleaded nor any evidence was adduced that plaintiff bonafide purchaser; or that he was not aware about the judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 in favour of defendant No.1 having been suffered by Harbhajan Singh. 7. It is further important to notice that mutation on the basis of judgment & decree d revenue record, it is defendant No.1 who is being recorded as owner of the suit property, but plaintiff filed the suit assailing the judgment and decree and consequent mutation on 05.11.2019 i.e. afte of the impugned judgment and decree 8. The contention of the appellant not intend to include the suit property while suffering judgment and decree dated 10.12.1986 i assailed during the life time of Harbhajan Singh. RSA No. 2928 of 2025 Page N: 3 of 4 after holding that sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff was subsequent to the impugned judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 and as such, the vendor of the plaintiff i.e. Harbhajan Singh was no longer the owner of the suit property at the time of executing sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has affirmed the aforesaid findings of the trial Court while dismissing the appeal on 15.05.2025. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel that mutation No. 6126, on the basis of judgment and decree dated 10.12.1986, was sanctioned on 24.09.1987, but prior to sanctioning of the said mutation, Harbhajan Singh had sold the suit pro in favour of plaintiff on 18.05.1987 for consideration of way, plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property for value and so, his rights are liable to be protected. To the specific query put by this Court to learned counsel, it is conceded that no such plea of plaintiff being bonafide purchaser was taken before the Courts below. Even the judgments of Courts below would reveal that nowhere it was pleaded nor any evidence was adduced that plaintiff bonafide purchaser; or that he was not aware about the judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 in favour of defendant No.1 having been suffered by Harbhajan Singh. It is further important to notice that mutation on the basis of judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 was sanctioned on 24.09.1987 and as per revenue record, it is defendant No.1 who is being recorded as owner of the suit property, but plaintiff filed the suit assailing the judgment and decree and consequent mutation on 05.11.2019 i.e. after approximately 33 years of passing of the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.12.1986 The contention of the appellant-plaintiff that Harbhajan Singh did not intend to include the suit property while suffering judgment and decree dated 10.12.1986 is without any force, as said judgment & decree were never assailed during the life time of Harbhajan Singh. deed in favour of the plaintiff was subsequent to the impugned judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 and as such, the vendor of the o longer the owner of the suit property at the deed in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has affirmed the aforesaid findings of the trial Court while dismissing the appeal concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel that mutation No. 6126, on the basis of judgment and decree dated 10.12.1986, was sanctioned on 24.09.1987, but prior to sanctioning of the said mutation, Harbhajan Singh had sold the suit property measuring 9 kanal 8 in favour of plaintiff on 18.05.1987 for consideration of ₹23,500/- and this way, plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property for value and so, his this Court to learned counsel, it is conceded that no such plea of plaintiff being bonafide purchaser was taken before the Courts below. Even the judgments of Courts below would reveal that nowhere it was pleaded nor any evidence was adduced that plaintiff was the bonafide purchaser; or that he was not aware about the judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 in favour of defendant No.1 having been suffered by It is further important to notice that mutation on the basis of ated 10.12.1986 was sanctioned on 24.09.1987 and as per revenue record, it is defendant No.1 who is being recorded as owner of the suit property, but plaintiff filed the suit assailing the judgment and decree and r approximately 33 years of passing dated 10.12.1986. plaintiff that Harbhajan Singh did not intend to include the suit property while suffering judgment and decree s without any force, as said judgment & decree were never assailed during the life time of Harbhajan Singh. deed in favour of the plaintiff was subsequent to the impugned judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 and as such, the vendor of the o longer the owner of the suit property at the deed in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has affirmed the aforesaid findings of the trial Court while dismissing the appeal concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel that mutation No. 6126, on the basis of judgment and decree dated 10.12.1986, was sanctioned on 24.09.1987, but prior to sanctioning of the measuring 9 kanal 8 and this way, plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property for value and so, his this Court to learned counsel, it is conceded that no such plea of plaintiff being bonafide purchaser was taken before the Courts below. Even the judgments of Courts below would reveal that was the bonafide purchaser; or that he was not aware about the judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986 in favour of defendant No.1 having been suffered by It is further important to notice that mutation on the basis of ated 10.12.1986 was sanctioned on 24.09.1987 and as per revenue record, it is defendant No.1 who is being recorded as owner of the suit property, but plaintiff filed the suit assailing the judgment and decree and r approximately 33 years of passing plaintiff that Harbhajan Singh did not intend to include the suit property while suffering judgment and decree s without any force, as said judgment & decree were never JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.29 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2928 of 202 9. Admittedly, the sale comparing to judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986. Thus, at the time when sale deed dated 18.05.1987 was executed by Harbhajan Singh in favour of plaintiff, the said vendor Harbhajan Singh did not have title in the suit property to convey the same to the plaintiff. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the Courts belo have not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff did not have any title in the suit property based on the sale Court does not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned concurrent findings of fact upon proper appreciation of evidence. As such, present appeal being devoid of any merits, in absence of any illegality or perversity, is hereby dismissed. 27.08.2025 Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable RSA No. 2928 of 2025 Page N: 4 of 4 Admittedly, the sale-deed dated 18.05.1987 is later in time comparing to judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986. Thus, at the time when sale ated 18.05.1987 was executed by Harbhajan Singh in favour of plaintiff, the said vendor Harbhajan Singh did not have title in the suit property to convey the same to the plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the Courts belo have not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff did not have any title in the suit property based on the sale Court does not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, which are found to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence. As such, present appeal being devoid of any merits, in absence of any illegality or perversity, is hereby dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No deed dated 18.05.1987 is later in time comparing to judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986. Thus, at the time when sale ated 18.05.1987 was executed by Harbhajan Singh in favour of plaintiff, the said vendor Harbhajan Singh did not have title in the suit property to convey In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the Courts belo have not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff did not have any title in the suit property based on the sale-deed dated 18.05.1987. This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned concurrent s recorded by the Courts below, which are found to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence. As such, present appeal being devoid of any merits, in absence of any illegality or perversity, is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE deed dated 18.05.1987 is later in time comparing to judgment & decree dated 10.12.1986. Thus, at the time when sale- ated 18.05.1987 was executed by Harbhajan Singh in favour of plaintiff, the said vendor Harbhajan Singh did not have title in the suit property to convey In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the Courts below have not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff did not deed dated 18.05.1987. This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned concurrent s recorded by the Courts below, which are found to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence. As such, present appeal being devoid of JITEN SHARMA 2025.08.29 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document