Babli vs Rangi Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5522 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Babli vs Rangi Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs And ... on 26 November, 2025

                                                                       Page 1 of 7

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
 118
                                     Date of decision: 26.11.2025

                                                         RSA-2101-2022(O&M)
Babli

                                                                  ...Appellant(s)
                                 Vs.
Rangi Ram (Deceased) through LRs & Others
                                                               ...Respondent(s)

CORAM:        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-     Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate
              for the appellant.

          ***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the

concurrent judgments and decrees of the ld. Courts below whereby suit of

the appellant for declaration, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff is the

daughter of defendant No.1; defendant No.2 is the sister-in-law/Bhabhi of

the plaintiff; and defendant No.3 is the nephew/Bhatija/son of brother, of

the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed the present suit seeking declaration to the

effect that the Release Deed No.4271 dated 05.07.2007 executed and got

registered by the defendant No.1 in favour of the son of defendant-

respondent No.2 namely late Kamal and defendant-respondent No.3 in

respect of suit land is illegal, null and void and therefore liable to be set aside.

1 of 7

The plaintiff had also prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction

that defendants No.2 and 3 be restrained from selling and alienating suit land.

3. Upon appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence

adduced by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar

dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.2016.

The Civil appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned

Additional District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 08.03.2022.

Hence, present Second Appeal by the plaintiff.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that

defendant No.1 had inherited the suit land measuring 16 kanal 8 marla from

his father Neki Ram in 1972. Therefore, suit land was ancestral and

coparcenary in the hands of defendant No.1. As the suit land was ancestral,

the defendant No.1 was not competent to execute the impugned Release

Deed. It is submitted that the plaintiff is 6 sisters and 3 brothers. Her brother

Anoop had died almost 20 years ago. His wife/defendant no.2, had

solemnized second marriage with Ranbir. Her other brother Dayanand had

also died, and his son Dharampal had already got agricultural share of sister

of defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 is the son of Krishan, who is third brother

of the appellant. It is submitted that signatures of the defendant No.1 were

taken by the defendants No.2 and 3 on the pretext that the entire land was

being partitioned among all family members. It is contended that the Release

Deed was never read over and explained to defendant No.1. Moreover,

2 of 7

defendant No.1 was 80 years old at the time of execution of Release Deed.

As such, he was not capable of understanding the same. Thereafter,

defendants No.2 and 3 had illegally got Mutation executed in their favour.

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submits that both the

learned Courts below have erred while passing the impugned judgements

and decrees by not considering the fact that the plaintiff along with other

members of the Joint Hindu Family have pre-existing rights in the co-

parcenary property; and by executing the impugned release deed bearing No.

4271 dated 05.07.2007 in favour of only Kamal (son of defendant No. 2) and

defendant No. 3 by the defendant No. 1/ Karta of the Joint Hindu Family,

leaving the remaining co-parceners, have been deprived them from their pre-

existing rights in the co-parcenary property.

6. It is contended that the observation of the learned Courts

below that no evidence has been adduced on file by the plaintiff to show

how Neki Ram, father of the defendant No. 1 came to be the owner in

possession of the suit property, is wrong. It is submitted that the plaintiff

has very well proved on the record by adducing cogent and reliable

evidence in the form of mutation No. 374 dated 17.05.1935 of village Devan

and mutation No. 359 dated 09.05.1935 pertaining to village Muklan that

Neki Ram inherited the suit property from his father Udey son of Rakha.

Further it has also been proved by the plaintiff that after the death of Neki,

the suit land had been inherited by defendant No. 1 by adducing relevant

3 of 7

revenue records in form of Ex.P13 to Ex.P14/1 and Ex. P18 to Ex. P19/1

However, the learned lower Appellate Court has wrongly and illegally

dismissed the application of Plaintiff under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of

Civil Procedure and has erred by not taking on record the aforesaid

mutations No. 374 and 359.

7. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further submits that both the

learned Courts below, while passing the impugned judgments and decrees

have not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. It is argued that

from the above facts, it stands established that the suit land was ancestral

and coparcenary property in the hands of defendant No.1 Rangi Ram.

Therefore, he was not competent to execute the release deed No. 4271

dated 05.07.2007 i.e. Ex.P23 in favour of Kamal son of defendant No. 2, and

defendant No.3 in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff being daughter of

defendant No.1 as well as a coparcener in the Joint Hindu Family property

is entitled to inherit the suit land to the extent of her share.

8. Ld. Counsel lastly reiterates that the Courts below have erred

by not considering the fact that on the date of execution of alleged release

deed, the defendant No.1 was more than 80 years of age and was incapable

of understanding the contents of impugned release deed. Otherwise also,

the contents of impugned release deed were never read over and explained

to defendant No.1. He was taken to the office of Sub Registrar, Hisar by

Krishan, father of defendant No.3 on the pretext that the entire suit land is

4 of 7

being partitioned among all the family members. Therefore, the impugned

release deed is a result of fraud and misrepresentation.

9. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments and

decrees be set aside; and the present appeal be allowed; and suit of the

plaintiff be decreed as prayed for.

10. No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on

behalf of learned counsel for the appellant.

12. Perusal of record shows that the plaintiff has miserably failed

to establish the ancestral nature of the suit property as alleged. A perusal

of Ex.P13/1, which is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1955-56, shows

that Neki Ram, father of defendant No.1 Rangi Ram was owner in

possession along with his brother; and after the death of Neki Ram, the suit

land was devolved upon defendant No.1 vide Mutation dated 30.08.1960

(Ex.P14/1). Record also establishes that defendant No.1 had inherited part

of the suit property from his mother by way of Mutation No.1346 dated

18.01.2010. Thus, the appellant had failed to prove that suit property

devolved upon defendant No.1 through three male lineal descendants; and

it was established that suit property was self-acquired. Therefore,

defendant No.1 was fully competent to execute the Release Deed (Ex.P23).

5 of 7

13. Even allegation of the appellant that the said Release Deed

was a result of fraud, is negated from the fact that the said Release Deed

(Ex.P23) was got registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar. Moreover,

defendant No.1 has not denied his signature on the Release Deed dated

05.07.2007. Furthermore, defendant No.2 has placed on record copy of

written statement (Ex.DW2/D) filed by defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No.413

of 2007 (as defendant No.3 in the said suit) wherein he has specifically

mentioned that the Release Deed dated 05.07.2007 (Ex.P23) was executed

by defendant No.1 with his consent and he was not under the influence of

anyone at the time of execution of the said Release Deed.

14. The appellant has sought to prove the ancestral nature of the

suit land by placing on record the Mutation No.359 dated 09.05.1935 and

Mutation No.374 dated 17.05.1935 by way of additional evidence before

the learned 1st Appellate Court to prove that Neki Ram, father of defendant

No.1 had inherited the suit property from his father Uday son of Rakha.

However, record reveals that the said application of the appellant has been

dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide speaking

order dated 08.03.2022 (Annexure A1) on the following grounds:

"6. The documents sought to be produced in additional evidence pertains to the year 1935 and were within reach of the appellant- plaintiff to be produced in her evidence. Therefore, at this stage, the appellant-plaintiff cannot be allowed to fill up lacuna in her case. Moreover, these mutations simply slow that father of respondent-

6 of 7

defendant No.1 inherited part of the suit land from his grand-father. Therefore, still said documents will not be able to prove ancestral character of the suit property. Hence, finding no merits in the application, the same stands dismissed."

15. Ld. Counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute or controvert

the above said findings. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.

Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (Deceased) (SC): Law Finder Doc Id #

2034559; has held that this Court in 2nd Appeal, has limited jurisdiction to

interfere in the concurrent findings. It is held as under:-

"14. This Court, in the case of Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh and Others (2019) 17 SCC 71, after considering the scope of interference under the old section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short "CPC") and Section 41 of the Punjab Act, has observed thus:

"15. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments would show that the jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be. The findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence. The jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact."

16. Keeping in view the above-said factual and legal position, the

present appeal stands dismissed.

17. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

                                                          (Nidhi Gupta)
26.11.2025                                                    Judge
Sunena
                    Whether speaking/reasoned:   Yes/No
                    Whether reportable:          Yes/No




                                    7 of 7