RSA No. 3531 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harmail Kaur & Ors. Kiranjit Kaur & Ors. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- DEEPAK GUPTA, J. second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for property in dispute filed by them was dismissed by the trial Court on 21.02.2019 and their appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 21.09.2023, thus, affirming the findings of the trial Court. 2. failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. 3. Gurdial Singh. Said Darshan Singh was brother of defendants No.2 and 3 Gurmail Singh and Gurdev Singh. Admittedly, Darshan Singh along with defendants No.2 and 3 and others were recorded to be co land measuring 2 kanal 17 marla i.e. 57 marla, detailed in the head note of the plaint, wherein Darshan Singh No.2 and 3 had 16/57 share. 4. settlement, which had allegedly taken place 20 years ago, defendants No.2 RSA No. 3531 of 2023 Page N: 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harmail Kaur & Ors. Versus Kiranjit Kaur & Ors. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeet Sood, Advocate for the appellants. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The plaintiffs are before this Court in the present regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute filed by them was dismissed by the trial Court on 21.02.2019 and their appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 21.09.2023, thus, affirming the findings of the trial Court. It is contended by learned counsel that Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. Plaintiffs are successors-in-interest of Darshan Singh son of Gurdial Singh. Said Darshan Singh was brother of defendants No.2 and 3 Gurmail Singh and Gurdev Singh. Admittedly, Darshan Singh along with defendants No.2 and 3 and others were recorded to be co land measuring 2 kanal 17 marla i.e. 57 marla, detailed in the head note of the plaint, wherein Darshan Singh had 4/57 share; whereas defendants No.2 and 3 had 16/57 share. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that in an oral family settlement, which had allegedly taken place 20 years ago, defendants No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3531 of 2023(O&M) Date of decision: 22.09.2025 …Appellants …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA The plaintiffs are before this Court in the present regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, declaration and permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute filed by them was dismissed by the trial Court on 21.02.2019 and their appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 21.09.2023, thus, affirming the findings of the trial Court. It is contended by learned counsel that Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. interest of Darshan Singh son of Gurdial Singh. Said Darshan Singh was brother of defendants No.2 and 3 i.e. Gurmail Singh and Gurdev Singh. Admittedly, Darshan Singh along with defendants No.2 and 3 and others were recorded to be co-owners in suit land measuring 2 kanal 17 marla i.e. 57 marla, detailed in the head note of had 4/57 share; whereas defendants It was claimed by the plaintiffs that in an oral family settlement, which had allegedly taken place 20 years ago, defendants No.2 RSA No. 3531 of 2023(O&M) Date of decision: 22.09.2025 Appellants Respondents The plaintiffs are before this Court in the present regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, declaration and permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute filed by them was dismissed by the trial Court on 21.02.2019 and their appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on It is contended by learned counsel that Courts below have interest of Darshan Singh son of i.e. Gurmail Singh and Gurdev Singh. Admittedly, Darshan Singh along with owners in suit land measuring 2 kanal 17 marla i.e. 57 marla, detailed in the head note of had 4/57 share; whereas defendants It was claimed by the plaintiffs that in an oral family settlement, which had allegedly taken place 20 years ago, defendants No.2 JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.22 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3531 of 2023 and 3 had given their share to Darshan Singh; and whereas Darshan Singh had given his share in other property measuring 2 kanal 9 marla situated near saw mill and another property measuring 20 marla situated within Lal Lakeer of the village in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and later on, defendants N by plaintiffs that in view of the fact that Darshan Singh, their predecessor had also become owner to the extent of share of defendants No.2 and 3 in the suit property, the sale deed dated 19.08.2013 execut defendants No.2 and 3 on their behalf and also as attorney of defendants No.4 to 11 in favour of defendant No.1 along with consequential mutation were null and void. 5. family settlem 6. dismissed the suit and Appellate Court affirmed the findings. 7. settlement was never reported t showed the plaintiffs as well as defendants No.2 and 3 as co suit property along with others. In such circumstances, Courts below rightly disbelieved the alleged oral family settlement. 8. point out towards any evidence to show that Darshan Singh had any share in other land measuring 2 kanal 9 marla situated near saw mill and another property measuring 20 marla, situated within the Lal L in which he had given his share to defendants No.2 and 3. In absence of any such evidence, the case of the plaintiffs disbelieved by the Courts below. 9. First Appellate Court are purely the findings of fact. This Court does not find RSA No. 3531 of 2023 Page N: 2 of 3 and 3 had given their share to Darshan Singh; and whereas Darshan Singh had given his share in other property measuring 2 kanal 9 marla situated near saw mill and another property measuring 20 marla situated within Lal Lakeer of the village in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and later on, defendants No.2 and 3 even sold that property. It was claimed by plaintiffs that in view of the fact that Darshan Singh, their predecessor had also become owner to the extent of share of defendants No.2 and 3 in the suit property, the sale deed dated 19.08.2013 execut defendants No.2 and 3 on their behalf and also as attorney of defendants No.4 to 11 in favour of defendant No.1 along with consequential mutation were null and void. Defendants No.1 to 3 contested the suit by denying any oral family settlement as was claimed by the plaintiffs. After framing issues and taking evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit and Appellate Court affirmed the findings. As observed by the Courts below, the alleged oral family settlement was never reported to the revenue authorities. Jamabandi Ex.P1 showed the plaintiffs as well as defendants No.2 and 3 as co suit property along with others. In such circumstances, Courts below rightly disbelieved the alleged oral family settlement. Apart from above, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out towards any evidence to show that Darshan Singh had any share in other land measuring 2 kanal 9 marla situated near saw mill and another property measuring 20 marla, situated within the Lal L in which he had given his share to defendants No.2 and 3. In absence of any such evidence, the case of the plaintiffs disbelieved by the Courts below. The findings as recorded by the trial Court and af First Appellate Court are purely the findings of fact. This Court does not find and 3 had given their share to Darshan Singh; and whereas in exchange Darshan Singh had given his share in other property measuring 2 kanal 9 marla situated near saw mill and another property measuring 20 marla situated within Lal Lakeer of the village in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 o.2 and 3 even sold that property. It was claimed by plaintiffs that in view of the fact that Darshan Singh, their predecessor had also become owner to the extent of share of defendants No.2 and 3 in the suit property, the sale deed dated 19.08.2013 executed by said defendants No.2 and 3 on their behalf and also as attorney of defendants No.4 to 11 in favour of defendant No.1 along with consequential mutation Defendants No.1 to 3 contested the suit by denying any oral ent as was claimed by the plaintiffs. After framing issues and taking evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit and Appellate Court affirmed the findings. As observed by the Courts below, the alleged oral family o the revenue authorities. Jamabandi Ex.P1 showed the plaintiffs as well as defendants No.2 and 3 as co-owners in the suit property along with others. In such circumstances, Courts below rightly disbelieved the alleged oral family settlement. om above, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out towards any evidence to show that Darshan Singh had any share in other land measuring 2 kanal 9 marla situated near saw mill and another property measuring 20 marla, situated within the Lal Lakeer of the village, in which he had given his share to defendants No.2 and 3. In absence of any such evidence, the case of the plaintiffs-appellants has been rightly The findings as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court are purely the findings of fact. This Court does not find in exchange Darshan Singh had given his share in other property measuring 2 kanal 9 marla situated near saw mill and another property measuring 20 marla situated within Lal Lakeer of the village in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 o.2 and 3 even sold that property. It was claimed by plaintiffs that in view of the fact that Darshan Singh, their predecessor had also become owner to the extent of share of defendants No.2 and 3 in ed by said defendants No.2 and 3 on their behalf and also as attorney of defendants No.4 to 11 in favour of defendant No.1 along with consequential mutation Defendants No.1 to 3 contested the suit by denying any oral After framing issues and taking evidence, the trial Court As observed by the Courts below, the alleged oral family o the revenue authorities. Jamabandi Ex.P1 owners in the suit property along with others. In such circumstances, Courts below rightly om above, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out towards any evidence to show that Darshan Singh had any share in other land measuring 2 kanal 9 marla situated near saw mill and another akeer of the village, in which he had given his share to defendants No.2 and 3. In absence of any appellants has been rightly firmed by the First Appellate Court are purely the findings of fact. This Court does not find JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.22 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3531 of 2023 any ground to disturb the said concurrent findings, which are found to be based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of 22.09.2025 Jiten RSA No. 3531 of 2023 Page N: 3 of 3 any ground to disturb the said concurrent findings, which are found to be based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable any ground to disturb the said concurrent findings, which are found to be based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Accordingly, the (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No any ground to disturb the said concurrent findings, which are found to be based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Accordingly, the JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.22 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document