Mukhtiar Kaur v. Dalip Singh & Ors

IN T

¶1RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Dalip Singh and

¶2RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Dalip Singh and

¶3RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Sadhu Singh

¶4RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Dalip Singh and

¶5RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Sadhu Singh

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

Res Da 71-1997 (O&M)

VERSUS d Others

72-1997 (O&M)

VERSUS d Others

73-1995 (O&M)

VERSUS

73-1997 (O&M)

VERSUS d Others

74-1995 (O&M)

VERSUS

JAB AND HARYANA ARH served on:-26.08.2025 ate of Decision : 04.09.2025

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondents

¶6RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Dalip Singh and

¶7RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Balbir Singh

¶8RSA-257 Mukhtiar Kaur Balbir Singh

¶9RSA-311 Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur a

¶10RSA-311 Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur a

¶11RSA-319 Dalip Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur a

74-1997 (O&M)

VERSUS d Others

75-1995 (O&M)

VERSUS

76-1995 (O&M)

VERSUS

6-1997 (O&M) d Another

VERSUS and Others

8-1997 (O&M) d Another

VERSUS and Others

94-1997 (O&M) d Others

VERSUS and Others

....Appellant

....Respondents

....Appellant

....Respondent

....Appellant

....Respondent

....Appellants

....Respondents

....Appellants

....Respondents

....Appellants

....Respondents

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Ms

For

For

Mr

Ms

In R

MANDEEP PA

1.

The by both sides. P Second Appeal concurrent findi the Wills and t and Others hav 1997, 2572-199 2576-1995, cha recorded by the Court. As all se learned trial Cou the same, they a Brief Facts

2.

Dal seeking declarat bighas 13 biswa ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Avnish Mittal, Advocate and s. Aparna Singhal, Advocate r the appellants in RSA Nos-257 73-1995, 2573-1997, 2574-1995 r respondent No.1 in RSA Nos-3 94-1997. r. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and s. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate for t RSA Nos-3116-1997, 3118-1997 94-1997. -.- ANNU,J. e batch of above-numbered Regu Plaintiffs-Dalip Singh and Bh ls bearing Nos. 3116-1997, 3 ings of both the Courts below in the consent decree of 1979, whi ve filed eight Regular Second 97, 2573-1995, 2573-1997, 25 allenging the declaration of the e learned trial Court and affirm ets of appeals arise out of comm urt and learned First Appellate C are being disposed of by this com lip Singh and Bhag Singh, sons tion that the land measuring 10 b as, situated in village Langrian, w

DEEP PANNU 71-1997, 2572-1997, , 2574-1997 and 3116-1997, 3118-1997 and the appellants 7 and ular Second Appeals has been fi ag Singh have filed three Regu 118-1997, 3194-1997 against nsofar as they upheld the validity ile the defendants-Mukhtiar Ka Appeals bearing Nos. RSA-25 574-1995, 2574-1997, 2575-19 property as ancestral to the ext med by the learned First Appel mon judgments and decrees of Court, and the property involved mmon judgment of mine. of Bakhtawar Singh, instituted bighas 12 biswas, 0–1 biswa and was ancestral coparcenary prope

filed ular y of aur 571-995, tent late d is suit d 15

in the hands of t therein by birth

5.6.1974 execut their daughter M

27.1.1979 suffer Kaur was ineffe

¶3Mu asserting that th mother Bhagwa acquired proper further relied up decree of 1979 a

4.

Mu and others for p possession of th plaint on the gr Smt.Bhagwan K owned 10 bigha settlement. The which Bhagwan admitting her cl no.1064 and 106 in possession o right or title thre their father, Bakhtawar Singh, a as his sons and coparceners. Th ted by Bakhtawar Singh and by h Mukhtiar Kaur were invalid, a red by Bakhtawar Singh and Bh ective and not binding upon them ukhtiar Kaur, the contesting d he land measuring 15 bighas 13 an Kaur under sale deed Ex.D1 rty, in which the plaintiffs could pon the registered Wills of 5.6 as validly conferring exclusive ri ukhtiar Kaur, defendant, also fil permanent injunction restraining he plaintiffs over the suit land, rounds that land measuring 15 Kaur, mother of the plaintiff, w as 12 biswas of land and same w plaintiff-Mukhtiar Kaur filed su n Kaur and Bakhtawar Singh ap laim. The suit was decreed and 65 were sanctioned in favour of f the land in dispute as owner. eatened to dispossess her, hence

and as such they had acquired rig hey further prayed that Wills da his wife Bhagwan Kaur in favou and that the consent decree da hagwan Kaur in favour of Mukh m as coparceners. defendant, resisted the claim biswas had been purchased by dated 13.6.1955 and was her s d claim no coparcenary rights. S

6.1974 and the subsequent cons ights upon her. ed suit no.744 against Dalip Sin g the defendants from interfering , fully described in heading of bighas 13 biswas was owned while Bakhatawar Singh, her fat was given to the plaintiff in a fam uit on basis of family settlemen ppeared and filed written statem d on the basis of decree, mutati f plaintiff and since then plaintif However, defendants without the suit.

ghts ated r of ated htiar by her elf-She sent ngh g in by ther mily nt in ment ons ff is

5.

De plaintiff and int land in dispute, No.1 & 2 were land in dispute Bakhatawar Sin sharers in it and family settlemen and the decree i alleged that the mutations and a

6.

Fro following issues 1) pla 2) ille 3) 4) 5) by 6) dat 7)

¶05fendants in the written statem ter alia pleaded that plaintiff ne , rather it was after the death in possession of the land in disp was coparcenary property of th ngh and his sons Dalip Singh, Bh d as such Bakhatawar Singh ha nt. It was further alleged that inf is null and void as regards the r e defendants had already filed s such this suit was liable to be s om the pleadings of the parties, s:- Whether the land in suit is an aintiffs and defendants No.2 and Whether the judgment and d egal and inoperative? OPP Whether the suit is not maint Whether the suit is within lim Whether the defendant No.1 adverse possession? OPD-1. Whether Bakhatawar Singh ted 05.06.74 in favour of Mukhit Whether Bhagwan Kaur ex

06.74 in favour of defendant No

ment denied the allegations of ever remained in possession of Bakhatawar Singh that defenda pute. It was further claimed that he joint Hindu family consisting hag Singh and defendants were ad no right to transfer the same fact no family settlement took pl rights of the plaintiff. It was furt d suit challenging the decree stayed. the learned trial Court framed ncestral coparcenary property of 3? OPP decree dated 27.01.1979 are wro tainable in the present form? OPD mitation? OPP has become owner of the suit l h executed a valid registered W tar Kaur defendant No.1? OPD-1 xecuted valid registered Will da o.1? OPD-1.

ants g of co-e in lace ther and f the ong, D and Will

8) suit 9) ow 10) OP 11) me stat OP 12)

7.

The Findings of the

8.

In t mentioned that No.744 of 29.10

18.08.89 (filed b As such, copy o file, pertaining judgment and de

9.

The evidence led by bighas 12 biswa Bakhtawar Sing had died prior t Whether the plaintiffs have n t? OPD Whether the plaintiffs are st wn acts and conduct? OPD ) Whether the suit is bad for PD ) Whether suit regarding lan ntioned in para No.6 of the ad tement is hit by the Benami Tra PD-1 ) Relief. e parties have led their evidence e Trial Court the 1st paragaraph of the judgmen the judgment will dispose of tw

0.92 (filed by Mukhtiar Kaur) wa by Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh) of this judgment and decree be al to suit No.744 of 29.10.92 (f ecree be treated as part of said su e learned trial Court after hearin both the parties came to the con as and 0–1 biswa was ancestral c gh, having been inherited by him to the coming into force of the

no cause of action to file the pres topped from filing the suit by th r non-joinder of necessary parti nd measuring 15 bighas 3 bisw dditional objections in the writ ansactions (Prohibition) Act, 19 . nt of learned trial Court, it has b wo suits, above said, because S as consolidated with Suit No.391 ) vide separate order dated 21.3. lso placed on the records of the c filed by Mukhtiar Kaur) and t uit. ng the parties and appreciating nclusion that the land measuring oparcenary property in the hand m from his father Dula Singh, w Hindu Succession Act, 1956. T

sent heir ies? was tten 88? een Suit 1 of .94. case this g 10 s of who

Court held that is the ancestral females cannot b No.2 and 3 have bighas 12 bisw alongwith 0-5 alongwith the p coparcenary pro got right to dea testamentary dis Act, so defenda ancestral coparc registered Will biswas of land, present plaintiff be binding or coparcenary pro concerned, the Bakhtawar Sing any right in the

10.

It w bighas 13 biswa owner with pos rightly executed become exclusi the suit land measuring 10 bigh coparcenary property in the ha be coparceners of the coparcena e got no right in the ancestral co was being 1/10the share of land biswas, Since Bkahtawar Sin present plaintiffs, his sons, had operty, which was inherited by h al with his share and interest sposition as per the provisions o ant No.1 has become owner to cenary property by virtue of te dated 05.06.1974 and the rema which is 1/10 share of 105 bigh fs in equal shares and the Will d operative qua the 2/3rd share operty. So far as the suit land same was neither ancestral cop gh from Dulla Singh nor the pre same. was further held by the learned as was the property of Bhagwan ssession to make disposition in d a valid Will dated 05.06.1974 ve owner in possession of the

has, 12 biswas alongwith 0-5 bis ands of Bakhtawar Singh, since ary property and as such, defenda oparcenary property meansuring d measuring 105 bighas 16 bisw ngh being Karta and coparce d got 1/3rd share in the ancesa him from his father Dulla Singh h by way of transfer or by way of Section 30 of Hindu Success the extent of his 1/3rd share in estamentary disposition by way aining 2/3rd share in 10 bighas has 16 biswas still remains with dated 05.06.1974 cannot be said of the plaintiffs in the ances measuring 15 bighas 13 biswa parcenary property nor inherited esent plaintiffs can be said to h trial Court that land measuring Kaur of which she was the absol n the way, she liked and she 4 in favour of defendant No.1 suit land measuring 15 bighas

swa ants g 10 was ener atral had y of sion y of d to stral s is d by have g 15 lute has

biswas out of th concern or inte registered Will defendant No.1 the tune of his plaintiffs are ow 2/3rd share in th which defendan along with 1/3rd observations, th Findings of the

11.

The mentioned that t No.75/365, date dated 19.08.94-against the jud Malerkotla.

12.

The evidence, affirm ancestral nature self-acquired ch also upheld the as a valid docu Mukhtiar Kaur, is set aside to th he suit property, with which the p erest in any manner, whatsoev dated 05.06.1974 executed b is also valid and legal to the ex 1/3rd share in the ancestral cop wners in joint possession with de he coparcenary property, except nt No.1 has become owner in j d share in 0-5 (0-1) biswas and e suit of the plaintiffs was partly e First Appellate Court e learned First Appellate Cou the judgment will dispose of abo ed 08.08.94-96; C.A No.74/366 d 96 and C.A 79/369 dated 22.8.9 dgment and decree dated 15.6 e learned First Appellate Cour med the findings of the learne of 10 bighas 12 biswas and 0–1 haracter of 15 bighas 13 biswas Wills as having been duly prov ument of title. Learned First Ap defendant, succeeds and the jud he extent that plaintiffs are owner

present plaintiffs have got no rig ver. Similarly, by virtue of by Bakhtawar Singh in favour xtent of his coparcenary interes parcenary property and the pres efendant No.1 to the extent of th 1/3rd share of Bakhtawar Singh joint possession with the plaint 10 bighas 12 biswas. With the s y decreed. urt, in para No.1 of its judgm ove-mentioned four appeals i.e. C dated 08.08.94-96; C.A No.78/4 94-96. All the appeals are direc

6.1994 of Sub Judge, 11 Cla rt, upon independent appraisal ed trial Court with respect to 1 biswa, and also with regard to in the hands of Bhagwan Kaur ved, and the consent decree of 19 ppellate Court held that appeal dgment and decree of the trial Co rs of ½ share instead of 2/3 share

ght, r of t to sent heir , of tiffs said ment C.A 413, cted ass, l of r. It l of ourt

the land measur and in 1 biswas regarding the r owner of the sa been rightly dis injunction can b sharers. Thus, th

13.

Ag have been instit 2571-1997, 257 1995, 2576-199 3194-1997. Submissions of

14.

On had proved on r basis of an appli trial Court. Aft excerpts prepare defendants. Hen

15.

Fur the jamabandie Hence, even if t purpose of deter

16.

Fur admitted the nat ring 10 bighas 12 biswas i.e. 1/ s i.e. 1/5the share of five biswas emaining land is dismissed be ame. The suit of Mukhtiar Kaur smissed because she is co-shar be granted against Dalip Singh he remaining three appeals are w ainst the said concurrent findi tuted before this Court, 8 by Mu 72-1997, 2573-1995, 2573-199 95, and 3 by Dalip Singh being f learned counsel for the partie n behalf of the plaintiffs, it has record the excerpts as Ex.P1. T ication dated 08.01.1992 moved ter the said application was allow ed. The production of said exce nce, the excerpts are required to b rther, it has been contended that s for the relevant period so as the excerpts are ignored, the Jam rmining the nature of property. rthermore, DW-1 Bhagwan Kau ture of property as ancestral in he

10th share of 105 bighas 16 bisw s of land. The suit of the plaint cause Mukhtiar Kaur has beco r for permanent injunction has a rer in the land in dispute and and Bhag Singh, who are also without any merit and are dismiss ings, 11 Regular Second Appe ukhtiar Kaur being RSA Nos. RS 97, 2574-1995, 2574-1997, 25 g RSA Nos.3116-1997, 3118-19 s been contended that the plaint The excerpts were prepared on d by the plaintiffs before the learn wed, the learned trial Court got erpts was never objected to by be read in evidence. t the plaintiffs had placed on rec s to prove the nature of prope mabandies can be considered for ur (widow of Bakhtaur Singh), h er cross-examination. The said f

was tiffs ome also co-sed. eals SA-575-997, tiffs ned cord erty. had

was also admitt cross-examinati admitted the fac

17.

It i Wills were prov must be proved case though Gu turned hostile an and the Sub-Re cannot substitute

18.

It w coparcenary pro transfer of imm Singh, the fath inherited by Ba Mitakshara law

(2020) 14 SCC substantiate the

19.

Con 15 bighas 13 evidence had be been held by th biswas, was nev Kaur. ted by Satnam Singh (husband o on. Further Jaswant Kaur daug ctum of property being ancestral s further contended that the cou ved, for under Section 68 of the by the evidence of at least one a urnam Singh, one of the attestin nd did not support the due execu egistrar are not attesting witness e the statutory requirement. was further urged that the cons operty, and being unregistered, c movable property. Learned couns her of Bakhtawar Singh, had akhtawar Singh was ancestral in w then in force, as laid down in C 436. The excerpt Ex.P1 and t ancestral character of the suit pr nversely, learned counsel for the biswas was purchased exclusi een led to show that it was purch he both the Courts concurrentl ver an ancestral property as the

of Mukhtiar-defendant no.1) in ghter of Bakhtaur Singh has a in nature. urts below erred in holding that e Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a W attesting witness, and in the pres ng witnesses, was examined, but ution of the Wills . The deed wr ses, and, therefore, their testimo ent decree of 1979 could not b could not operate as a document sel further stressed that since Du died prior to 1956, the prope n his hands qua his sons under n Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Ka the mutations were relied upon roperty. e defendants argued that the land ively by Bhagwan Kaur, and hased from joint family funds. It ly that suit property 15 Bigha same was in the name of Bhagw

his also Will sent t he riter ony bind t of ulla erty Kaur n to d of has

20.

The evidence of the admissions mad culminating in th

21.

The suffered a cons property of con acquired proper 15 Bigha 13 Bis from Pritam Sin Similarly, Bakh had every right t Ex.D3 and Bhag their free Will. after a period o otherwise, none However, once entitled to claim Singh were able executed by Ba legal and bindin

22.

Lea the remaining p learned lower C evidence on rec ey contended that the Wills st deed writer, the Sub-Registrar a de by Bakhtawar Singh and B he consent decree amounted to p ey further argued that Bakht sent decree dated 27.01.1979 i nsent decree which was transf rty of Bakhtawar Singh and Bha swas vide Ex.D1-Sale deed date ngh and has right to relinquish th htawar Singh's property was also to transfer. Furthermore, a perus gwan Kaur Ex.D2 shows that th The plaintiffs/respondents cha of ten years, which is barred b e of the executor challenged the property is established as m any share therein. Thus, bo e to legally transfer their land to akhtawar Singh and Bhagwan K ng on all the parties. arned counsel for the defendant property measuring 10 Bighas 1 Courts held that this is the ancesa ord to prove ancestral nature of

tood proved through corroborat and the handwriting expert, and t Bhagwan Kaur in the earlier proof of the same. tawar Singh and Bhagwan K in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur. T ferred to Mukhtiar Kaur was agwan Kaur. Bhagwan Kaur own ed 13.06.1955 which she purcha he same in favour of Mukhtair Ka o self-acquired property to which sal of statement of Bakhtawar Sin he consent decree was executed allenge the aforementioned decr by the statute of limitations. Ev the same during their lifetim non-ancesatral, the plaintiff is th Bhagwan Kaur and Bakhtaw Mukhtiar Kaur and consent dec Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar Kau ts further contended that regard 12 biswas and 0-1 biswa, both atral property, however, there is property. Furthermore, the exce

tive that suit Kaur The self ned ased aur. h he ngh d by ree, ven me. not war cree ur is ding s no

presented as evi the absence of the plaintiff cann Findings of thi

23.

Hav the concurrent f parties in the ju opinion that the whether the sam rested their enti Ex.P1. Both the on the assumpti property. Howev

24.

It i application had Judge, Malerko this only demon not elevate the distinction betw requires the auth depose that the record. Unless s paper on the file

25.

Rel Singh 2018 1 R idence was not properly proven any such evidence regarding th not claim any right in the same. is Court and Conclusion ving considered the rival conte findings of the courts below with udgment of learned Lower App real controversy turns upon the me was ancestral in the hands o ire claim on the strength of th e learned trial Court and learned ion that the excerpt was sufficie ver, such approach cannot be sus is true that as noticed by the le been moved for preparation of tla, who directed the Patwari M nstrates that the excerpt was draw document to the status of pro ween the preparation of an excerp hor or competent revenue offici excerpt has been prepared by co such evidence is led, the excerp e. liance has been placed upon RCR Civil 844, wherein Co-ord

n in accordance with law. Thus he ancesatral proof of the prope ntions, the record of the case, h slight modification in the share pellate Court, this Court is of nature of the suit property, name of Bakhtawar Singh. The plaint he excerpt tendered in evidence d Lower Appellate Court procee ent to prove ancestral nature of stained in law. earned Lower Appellate Court, the excerpt before the learned S Moharrir to prepare the same. Y wn up on judicial direction; it d oved evidence. There is a mate pt and the proof of an excerpt. Pr ial to step into the witness box omparison with the original reven pt remains no more than a piece Sarabjit Kaur versus Tarloch dinate Bench of this court has h

s, in erty, and e of ely, tiffs e as ded suit an Sub Yet, does erial roof and nue e of han

that unless and u is further observ "22 und pro " (v rem Pat The Cou exc com whe The are

(vi) wit and

26.

In S Banta Singh a wherein it has b "11 car exa until excerpts are proved, these ved in this judgement as follows:

¶2It is further important to note der Volume 1, Chapter 9, Ru ocedure for proving the excerpt,

v) Excerpt should be a true copy member that unless proved, the twari Muharrir is not evidence e Special Kanungo or Patwari urt always bring with him the cerpt has been complied, so mparison. He must always be p ether the excerpt is a true copy o e excerpt must be a correct copy e relevant and not merely a summ ) Comparison with original-The th the original records some of th d date those thus compare." Sarabjit Kaur's case (supra) fur and others versus Phuman Sin een held as under:- 1 The revenue excerpt is no part rry any presumption of correctne amination in the witness box of e basis of the entries in the

are not to be treated as evidence :- e that High Court Rules and orde ule 5(v) and (vi), prescribed the same are reproduced as und y and should be proved-Court m excerpt of the Special Kanungo e and must not be treated as su Muharrir must, when he goes e original records from which o that it may be available put on oath and be asked to of a portion of the original recor y of such portions of the records mary or paraphrase. e Court should, as a rule, compa he entries in the abstract and ini rther reliance has been placed up ngh and another, 1972 PLJ 2 of the record of rights and does ess. It has to be formally proved the person who has prepared it various settlement records a

e. It ers, der: must o or uch. s to his for say rds. s as are, itial pon 275, not d by t on

jam div rep par hav wh

27.

Fur (supra) has plac 2014 4 RCR Civ " 1 nat pro cro wh was non

28.

It is is not mandator such character c entries. This pri v. Om Pal &

30.11.2018 by a mabandis. It is an extract or s verse places and its value depen e original entries. If there is any produced the original entries. rticular entry in the excerpt, it w ve it removed by reference to th ich the excerpt was prepared." rther, a Co-ordinate Bench in ced reliance on Gurmail Singh vil 397, wherein it has been held

¶16In any case, the burden wa ture of the property in dispute oducing cogent evidence and th e plaintiff is inconsequential beca e excerpt, while appearing as P oss-examination that he has not ich he has prepared this excerpt s unable to say anything abou nancestral." s now well‑settled that preparati ry to establish the ancestral or c can alternatively be demonstrated inciple finds authoritative suppor Ors. RSA No.3565 of 2005 a a co-ordinate Bench of this Court

synopsis of entries collected fr nds on how truly it has reprodu y doubt depends on how truly it If there is any doubt abou will always be open to the Courts he original records on the basis the case of Sarabjit Kaur's c versus Rajbir Singh and anoth d that:- as upon the plaintiff to prove e, but he has failed to prove he excerpts (Ex.P1) relied upon ause the person, who had prepa PW1 has categorically stated in t brought the original record fr t nor this record is with him and ut the property being ancestral on of an excerpt of revenue reco coparcenary nature of the prope d through Jamabandis and mutat rt in case of Kuldeep Singh & O and connected matter decided t, wherein the court held that

rom uced has t a s to s of case her, by n by ared his from d he l or ords erty; tion Ors.

" nec pro sui old are esta ma offi exc pro rec cop

29.

Leg

¶1in t onl

¶2ent

¶3evi Act Mu Before recording that the cessary for the party which alleg oves that a co-parcenary existed t. For establishing co-parcenary d and new khasra numbers (pre a e properly connected and ide ablished beyond doubt. It is fo de in the High Court Rules and ficial and get an excerpt of the r e production of the excerpt is cerpt and examination of the oduce on file sufficient record a cords so as to identify the parcenary property.'' gal Position is thus summarise Excerpt is only a consolidate the revenue record, prepared for ly a summary document. Preparation of excerpt is not tries of jamabandi and mutation a Jamabandi and mutation re dence. Certified copies of jama t, 1872, are admissible to sh utation entries, though not by

property is co-parcenary, it ges the property to be co-parcena d and is continuing till filing of ry property, it is necessary that and post consolidation of holdin ntification of the land has b or this reason, provision has b d Orders for appointing a reven revenue record prepared. No dou not necessary but in absence revenue official, the party m allowing the Court to compare land which has claimed to d as below :- ed extract of entries already exist r the convenience of the Court. I t mandatory. Law requires proof and not necessarily an excerpt. ecords themselves are admissi abandis under Section 35 Evide how title and nature of holdi y themselves proof of title,

t is ary, f the ngs) een een nue ubt, e of must be ting It is f of ible nce ing.

cor anc

¶4and ma rev suc nat 9, R and

¶30I tendered in evid property, the p jamabandies an chain of succes an excerpt be pr underlying Jama a revenue offici property from o court cannot c Without such e production of th

31.

Kee and circumstan rroborate jamabandi entries to s cestors. Where original revenue recor d mutations are duly exhibited, ake the evidence defective. Wh venue records are proved by reve ccession and continuity of ancest However, where excerpts are ture of the property, the procedu Rule 5(v) & (vi) of the High C d prove it, must be strictly follow In the present case, although jam dence are admissible but in ord plaintiffs relied upon excerpt d mutation which is not suffici sion and continuity of ancestral repared and proved as per High abandis and mutations be proper ial, such as a Patwari or Tehsild one generation to the next. In the onfidently connect the dots f evidence, the ancestral nature he documents. eping in view law laid down ab nces of the present case wher

show devolution of property fr rd or certified copies of jamaban the absence of an excerpt does hat matters is that the underly enue expert to establish the chain tral property. e relied upon to prove the ances ure prescribed in Volume I, Chap Court Rules and Orders to prep wed. mabandies and mutations have b der to prove the ancestral nature t Ex.P1 and certified copies ient. To satisfactorily establish l property, it is essential that eit Court Rules and Orders or that rly proved through the testimony ar, who can authoritatively link e absence of such examination, from earlier to existing holdin cannot be inferred merely fr bove and keeping in view the fa re no proper procedure has b

rom ndis not ying n of stral pter are een e of of ther y of ngs. rom acts

followed to pro foundational rec trial Court and excerpt as conc to that effect are

32.

On the property, t necessarily fail. and his wife Bh extent of the la under a register competent to tra upheld. Similar remaining land m to suffer the dec want of registrat already made in

33.

Wi independent ad necessary. The W coparcenary in n stands secured o

34.

Acc Singh have fail properties in dis ove the excerpt as no revenu cord was proved, this Court is o the Lower Appellate Court fe lusive proof of the ancestral nat e accordingly set aside. nce the plaintiffs have failed to their challenge to the consen The decree Ex.DW3/D was jo hagwan Kaur in favour of thei and measuring 15 bighas 13 bis red sale deed, the property was ansfer it. To that extent, the find rly, Bakhtawar Singh, being ab measuring 10 Bighas 12 Biswas cree. The objection of the plainti tion is without substance, for the nter se the parties, and did not the th ownership already flowing f djudication on the validity of Wills were questioned only on nature, a ground which has failed on the strength of the decrees the cordingly, it is held that the p led to establish their plea rega spute. The excerpt relied upon b

ue official was examined, and of considered opinion that both ell into patent error in treating ture of the property. Their findi establish the ancestral character nt decree dated 27.01.1979 m intly suffered by Bakhtawar Sin ir daughter Mukhtiar Kaur. To swas, purchased by Bhagwan K clearly self-acquired, and she w dings of both the Courts below bsolute owner of his share in s and 0-1 Biswa was also compet ffs that the decrees were invalid e decrees only recognised a trans emselves create new rights. from the valid consent decrees, the Wills dated 05.06.1974 the footing that the properties w d. The ownership of Mukhtiar K emselves. plaintiffs – Dalip Singh and Bh arding the ancestral nature of y them is not proved in accorda

ngs r of must ngh Kaur was are tent for sfer 4 is were Kaur hag

with law, and b otherwise. The c Bhagwan Kaur consequence, D measuring 10 B challenge raise Mukhtair Kaur suit property an restraining the d

35.

Reg 2573-1997, 257 Kaur are allowe Appellate Court Appeals No. 3 and Bhag Singh decreed and the

36.

Pen

September 04, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh both the trial court and the low consent decree dated 27.01.1979 in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur is Defendant-Mukhtiar Kaur is hel Bighas 12 Biswas and 0-1 Biswa ed by the plaintiffs stands re over suit property, revenue rec nd accordingly she is entitled to defendants from disposing her fro gular Second Appeals No.25 74-1995, 2574-1997, 2575-199 ed and judgment and decree pass t are set aside to the extent as 116-1997, 3118-1997, 3194-19 h stand dismissed. Accordingly, suit filed by Dalip Singh and Bh nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes.

wer appellate court erred in hold 9 executed by Bakhtawar Singh valid and binding. As a necess ld as owner of the suit proper a and 15 Bighas 13 Biswas, and epelled. Regarding possession ord shows her possession over o the relief of permanent injunct om the suit land. 571-1997, 2572-1997, 2573-19 95, 2576-1995, filed by Mukh sed by the trial Court and the Low s detailed above. Regular Seco 997 filed by plaintiffs-Dalip Sin the suit filed by Mukhtiar Kau hag Singh stands dismissed. stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing

ding and sary rties of tion 995, htiar wer ond ngh