Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwan Singh vs Balraj Singh And Others on 27 November, 2025
RSA-716-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
116 RSA-716-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.11.2025
Balwan Singh ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Balraj Singh and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate for the appellant.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent
judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by
the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction, has been
dismissed by both the Courts below.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the
instant suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession
to the extent of half share of the residential plot. Plaintiff also sought
declaration that he is owner in joint possession to the extent of 1/5th
share in agricultural land; and permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from alienating the suit properties.
3. It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff and defendants are
real brothers and members of Joint Hindu Family being sons of late Inder
Singh. Inder Singh had died on 10.02.2010. It was alleged in the plaint
that Release Deed dated 04.01.2010 executed by Inder Singh in favour of
RSA-716-2022 (O&M) -2-
the defendants, was illegal, null and void because Inder Singh was not of
sound mind at the time of execution of Release Deed dated 04.01.2010
which was executed in collusion with Deed Writer and staff of Registrar
Matlauda. Moreover, suit property was ancestral in nature. Therefore,
Inder Singh had no right to alienate the same. Even otherwise, Inder Singh
had executed Agreements dated 21.05.1989, 28.06.1989 and 09.03.1998
in favour of the plaintiff as per which share of the plot No. 630 (1-19) of
Inder Singh came in share of the plaintiff and cost of construction was also
received by him vide Agreement dated 09.03.1998. It was contended that
therefore, Release Deed was liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, present
suit was filed on 07.06.2011.
4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the
parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat had
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated
24.02.2016. The Civil Appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by
the learned District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated
24.05.2019. Hence, the present Second Appeal by the plaintiff.
5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that impugned judgments of the learned Courts below were based upon
surmises and conjectures. Learned Courts below have gravely erred in not
relying upon independent witnesses produced by the appellant. Even
issues have not been correctly framed. Therefore, impugned judgments
and decrees are liable to be set aside on the short ground itself.
Judgments of the learned Courts below are based on assumptions and
RSA-716-2022 (O&M) -3-
presumptions. Learned Courts below have given findings beyond the
pleadings. Impugned judgments are vague and self contradictory. Learned
Courts below also committed grave injustice in ignoring the fact that
plaintiff is a member of Joint Hindu Family. As such, he has right in the suit
property. Learned Courts below have erred in ignoring the Agreements
dated 21.05.1989, 04.06.1989, 28.06.1989 and 09.03.1998 by which suit
land was given to the appellant by Inder Singh. No adverse inference could
have been drawn against the appellant merely on account of the fact that
said Agreements were unregistered; as admittedly these Agreements had
taken place between members of Joint Hindu Family. As such, there was
no need to register them in any manner.
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that the Ld. Lower court also ignored the fact that at the time of execution
and registration of release deed Sh. Inder Singh was not having sound
mind and same has been got registered from him in fraudulent manner in
collusion with deed writer and witnesses of the same. Hence Release
Deed is not enforceable in the eyes of law and same is liable to be set-
aside, but the Ld. Courts did not consider this aspect.
7. It is contended that Plaintiff had also led cogent evidence to
prove his possession over the suit property. However, the said evidence
has been ignored by the learned Courts below.
8. It is accordingly prayed that the present Second Appeal be
allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts
below be set aside.
RSA-716-2022 (O&M) -4-
9. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have
heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file in great
detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
10. The plaintiff has placed reliance upon Agreements dated
21.05.1989 (Ex.P2), 04.06.1989 (Ex.P3), 28.06.1989 (Ex.P4) and
09.03.1998 (Ex.P5) (available at pages 123 to 129 of the LCR respectively);
whereby allegedly part of the suit property was given by Inder Singh to
the plaintiff. However, a perusal of the said documents shows that no
details of the property allegedly given by Inder Singh to the plaintiff, have
been mentioned therein. In the Agreement dated 09.03.1998 Ex.P5, there
is reference of one Khasra No. 630 in respect of which it is stated that said
plot was exchanged for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. Notwithstanding the said
recital, in the Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002, the said plot is still
standing in the name of Inder Singh alongwith other co-sharers.
11. Moreover, in Jamabandi for the year 1986-1987 Ex.D2, Inder
Singh is recorded to be owner of 16K and plaintiff and defendants are
recorded as owners of the remaining land of 151 K 6 M; meaning thereby,
that the land was partitioned during lifetime of Inder Singh; and therefore,
parties were no longer members of Joint Hindu Family. This finding is
further substantiated from the fact that plaintiff during his cross-
examination has admitted that in the previous settlement, houses in
abadi deh were given to his brothers by Inder Singh with consent of the
plaintiff. Plaintiff has further admitted that land was also transferred in the
RSA-716-2022 (O&M) -5-
name of 5 brothers. Clearly therefore, the Agreement dated 09.03.1998
Ex.P5 was never acted upon and was not incorporated in the revenue
record. In respect of the remaining Agreements, plaintiff has failed to
produce any evidence to show which land the said Agreements pertained
to.
12. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence to
substantiate his assertion that Inder Singh was not in a sound disposing
mind at the time of execution of Release Deed on 04.01.2010. In fact,
PW2/Shiv Kumar, Draftsman, Sub Tehsil Matlauda in cross-examination
has stated that Inder Singh was healthy and in fit state of mind; and that
after Release Deed was written, it was read over to Inder Singh and was
signed by him in presence of witnesses. Admittedly, mutation of Release
Deed has also been sanctioned. Plaintiff also failed to lead any evidence to
show his possession over the suit property.
13. Thus, from a reading of the entire documentary and other
evidence on record, it follows that out of entire property inherited by
Inder Singh from his father, Inder Singh had transferred 151K 6M to the
extent of equal shares in favour of his sons - being the plaintiff and
defendants No. 1 to 4. The entries in Jamabandis Ex.D2 to Ex.D4
corroborate this fact. The land in favour of the plaintiff and the said
defendants was transferred on the basis of partition. Inder Singh being co-
owner in the entire joint property was entitled to his share in the same.
Accordingly, Inder Singh had held his share in form of disputed property
RSA-716-2022 (O&M) -6-
No.2 after partition of remaining land in favour of his 5 sons including the
plaintiff. The same is reflected in the Jamabandi Ex.D2 to Ex.D4.
14. Joint property of which disputed property No.2 was a part,
had been partitioned amongst co-parceners. As such, same did not remain
ancestral coparcenary property and became new share of Inder Singh.
Thus, Inder Singh was competent to execute Release Deed dated
04.01.2010 Ex.DW2/A qua his share in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert or
dispute the above said facts and findings.
16. In view of the above, the present Regular Second Appeal
stands dismissed.
17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
27.11.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
