Jangir Kaur vs Darshan Singh & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 796 P&H

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

214                                    RSA-3813-2011 (O&M)
                                       Date of decision : 16.01.2023

Jangir Kaur
                                                      ... Appellant
                    Versus

Darshan Singh and others
                                                     .. Respondents

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:-     Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

              Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate for the respondents.
                   ***

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated

08.10.2010 passed by the trial Court whereby the suit for declaration filed by

her has been dismissed and the judgment of the Appellate Court dated

12.05.2011 dismissing the appeal thereagainst.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit ought to

have been decreed as the memorandum of partition was a fabricated document

and not binding on the appellant as the thumb impressions were not of the

appellant. She further submits that the memorandum of partition was for 114

kanals 19 marlas of land while the mutation had been sanctioned for 134 kanals

14 marlas and her share had been reduced. The appellant was the owner in

possession of the land to the extent of 1/4th share and 1/12th share was inherited

after the death of her husband.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the

appellant was a party to the settlement which carried her thumb impression.

The mutation had been sanctioned on the basis of partition and therefore, it is

too late for the appellant to contend that it was a fabricated document.

                                      1 of 2

 RSA-3813-2011 (O&M)                                                             -2-
                                    ---------
                Heard.

The appellant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the

memorandum of partition dated 31.05.2003 and the mutations sanctioned on

the basis thereof bearing Nos.13500 and 13716 would have no bearing on her

rights. It was also stated that the appellant is the owner of 729/2694 share out

of the land measuring 134 kanals 14 marlas. The Courts have recorded findings

of fact that the memorandum of partition (Ex.P1) bore the thumb impression of

the appellant. In her cross-examination, she had stated that the parties are in

cultivating possession of their respective share of land. PW-2 Pritam Singh,

who is Numberdar, had also deposed that the parties had appeared and signed

Ex.P1 in his presence and he had identified them before the Revenue Officer.

The Revenue Officer had made an enquiry and only thereafter, the mutations

had been sanctioned. The mutation (Ex.P5) had been signed in the presence of

the parties and the appellant/plaintiff had thumb marked the same. She was in

possession of the land and had been cultivating her share in terms of the

settlement arrived and the mutation was carried out for her share. It was thus

too late in the day to turn around and challenge the settlement and mutations.

Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal which stands

dismissed.

Pending application, if any, shall also stand dismissed accordingly.

                                           (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
                                                   JUDGE
January 16, 2023
sonia gugnani


                Whether speaking/reasoned          :    Yes/No
                Whether Reportable                 :    Yes/No




                                          2 of 2