Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khem Chand & Ors vs Hukam Singh & Ors on 8 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
1
RSA-2115-2013
2013 (O&M)
[218] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2115
2115-2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 08.12.2025
Khem Chand (since deceased)
through his LRs and others ...Appellants
versus
Hukam Chand (since deceased)
through his LRs and others ....Respondents
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Karundeep Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate and
Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
PANKAJ JAIN,
JAIN J. (ORAL)
[1] The set of defendants is in regular second appeal. [2] For the convenience, parties arties hereinafter are referred to by their original positions position in the civil suit, i.e. the appellants as 'defendants' and the respondents as 'plaintiffs".
[3] Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of 28302/91120 share of the suit land measuring 172 kanals 02 marlas as detailed out in the head head-note note of the plaint and that they have wrongly been recorded to the owner of 3/16 share in jamabandi for the year 1998-1999.
1998 1999. As per the plaint, Chandan and Nand Ram (two two brothers) brothers were owners in possession of 3/8 share. After death of Nand Ram, Chandan and sons of Nand Ram filed a suit to the effect that Chandan and son sonss of 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 12:58:52 ::: 2 RSA-2115-2013 2013 (O&M) Nand Ram are owners to the extent of 9/20 share. The suit was decreed on 01.10.1978. Chandan and Nand Ram were declared to be owners in possession of 9/40 share each. Thereafter, another suit was filed by Chandan and LRs of Nand Ram against Ram Kishan, han, Chalti and Jawala. The same was decreed on 28.10.1978. Chandan and others were held to be owners of 390/2278 share of Ram Kishan etc. The plaintiffs accordingly claim that the share of Chandan thus became 28302/91120 share (9/40 + 195/2278). Chandan an died, leaving behind plaintiffs as his LRs. Plaintiffs alleged that their share in the suit land has been wrongly recorded as 3/16 only and defendant Nos.6 to 13 have been shown as owners of share held by Bharpai. Even though, Bharpai suffered decree dated 01.10.1975 during her lifetime. Plaintiffs accordingly claimed that they are entitled to the extent of 28302/91120 share,, which includes the share of Bharpai etc., who suffered decree in favour of Chandan on 01.10.1978 and share of Ram Kishan etc. who suffered decree on 28.10.1978. The defendants under the garb of partition order passed by A.C. IInd Grade, wherein the plaintiffs were proceeded against ex parte want to dispossess the plaintiffs.
[4] Suit uit was contested by defendant Nos.7, 11, 12 & 13 i.e. the present appellants. It is admitted fact that Chandan and Nand Ram obtained a declaratory ratory decree qua share of Bharpai, Bakhtawari etc. but the defendants claimed that once land has been ordered to be partitioned and Naksha Be has been confirmed, d, the partition proceedings cannot be set aside.
[5] Suit uit filed by the plaintiffs was put to trial by the Court of First Instance, framing following issues:-
issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 12:58:52 ::: 3 RSA-2115-2013 2013 (O&M) suit property? OPP
2. Whether thee partition order dated 07.11.2007 is illegal, null and void? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD
4. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD
5. Relief. "
[6] The Court of First Instance rejected the contention raised by the defendants that the decree passed by the Civil Court in favour of Chand Ram has not been incorporated in the revenue record, the plaintiffs cannot claim rights thereunder and are bound by the order order of partition and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
[7] The aforesaid findings stand affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court.
[8] Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. He places reliance upon Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 1887. He claims that the statute excludes exclude jurisdiction of Civil Courts in the matters relating to correction of entries in record of rights and qua any claim for partition of an estate. He has further placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by this Court in 'Harjinder Singh versus Kesar Singh and others', CR-5295 5295- 2013 decided on 28.10.2013, 'Om Pati and another versus Hawa Singh and others', RSA-3582-2018 RSA 2018 decided on 11.10.2023, 'Re 'Resham sham Singh versus Jaswant Singh and others', CR-
CR-577-2023, 2023, decided on 30.01.2023 and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 12:58:52 ::: 4 RSA-2115-2013 2013 (O&M) Court in 'Mrs. Akella Lalitha versus Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao and another', Civil Appeal Nos.6325-6326 Nos.6325 6326 of 2015 decided on 28.07.2022. [9] Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is not a case that could fall within the ambit of Section 158. It is a case wherein in the ownership of the plaintiffs was wrongly incorporated in the jamabandies in ignorance to the Civil Court decrees. The mistake in the jamabandies got perpetuated which led to mistake in the order of partition. It being an issue of title, Civil Court has rrightly ightly exercised the jurisdiction granting decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiffs. [10] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case. [11] The facts are not much in dispute. It is not in di dispute spute that Chandan and Nand Ram,, the two brothers were initially owners to the extent of 3/8 share in the suit land. By dint of judgment (Exhibit P P-2)
2) and decree (Exhibit P-3) P 3) dated 01.10.1975 passed in Civil Suit titled as ''Chandan Chandan etc. ', 9/40 share of Bharpai etc. in the suit land was decreed versus Bharpai etc.', in favour of Chandan and Nand Ram. Likewise, by the dint of judgment and decree (Exhibit P-4) P 4) dated 28.10.1978 in Civil Suit titled as 'Chandan Chandan etc. versus etc. 390/2278 share was decreed in favour of Chandan us Ram Kishan etc.' and Nand Ram.
Ram. The issue that arises for the consideration of this Court is:-
is "Whether hether defendants can be allowed to rely upon partition proceedings before Assistant Collector, IInd Grade to non non-suit suit the plaintiffs in terms of Section ection 158 of 1887 Act.
Act."
[12] Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 reads as under:-
4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 12:58:52 ::: 5 RSA-2115-2013 2013 (O&M) "158. Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters Revenue-officers. - Except as within the jurisdiction of Revenue otherwise provided by this Act Act-
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over
any of the following matters, namely:
namely:-
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(vi) the correction of any entry in a record record-of-rights, rights, annual record or register of mutations;
xxxx xxxx xxxx (xvii) any claim for partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or any question connected with, or arising out of, proceedings for partition, not being a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought;
xxxx xxxx xxxx " [13] Trite it is that the mutation entries do not have any fact of
investing or divesting title in any person. At the same time, records of right have presumption of truth being piece of evidence. They are piece of evidence winning title. The entries in record of right do not invest title.
Once admittedly there are Civil Courts decrees in favour of the plaintiffs which have attained finality and have not been challenged challenged, the pendency of partition proceedings cannot have any effect of stri striking king out the present suit when Clause xxvii (supra) itself excludes question of title from operation of Section 158 of 1887 Act. Section 45 of 1887 Act answers the issue raised by Mr. Sharma, Senior Counsel for the appellants, regarding exclusion of jurisdiction diction of Civil Courts regarding remedy available to a person aggrieved of entry in the record of right. The provision reads as under:-
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 12:58:52 ::: 6 RSA-2115-2013 2013 (O&M) "45.
45. Suit for declaratory decree by persons, aggrieved by an entry in a record: - If any person considers himself aggrieved as to any right of which he is in the possession by an entry in a record-of-rights rights or in an annual record, he may institute a suit for a declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877."
[14] In view of the above, thiss Court finds that Section 45 empowers a person aggrieved by an entry in record of right to seek relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
[15] In view of the above, finding no merits in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed.
[16] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off.
off (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 08.12.2025 'R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 20-12-2025 12:58:52 :::