Lovekesh Talwar And Another vs Sushil Kumar Talwar & Others

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
180 RSA- 2718-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.09.2026
Lovekesh Talwar and another
....Appellants
Vs.
Sushil Kumar Talwar and others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Ms. Nandini Gupta, Advocate
for caveator/respondents No.1 and 2.
*
HARSH BUNGER J.
CM-9664-C-2026:
Prayer in the present application is for placing on record
documents as Annexures A-1 to A-10 as well as seeking exemption from
filing the certified copies of the same.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the documents as
Annexures A-1 to A-10, are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
RSA- 2718-2023 (O&M):
1. For convenience, the parties herein are being addressed as per
their status in the original suit.
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -2-
2. Present regular second appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs
No. 2 and 3, who along with present respondents No. 3 and 4, had filed a
suit for declaration claiming the following reliefs:
“(Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff no.1 is the
exclusive owner in possession of the properties shown below:-
a) Property bearing no.366, situated at New Jawahar Nagar,
Jalandhar having an area of 14 Marlas 102 Sq. ft, property
comprised in Khasra No.4554 Min, 4555 Min, having been
purchased through four sale deeds i.e. three sale deeds dated
15.09.1999 and one is 16.09.1999, which has been shown as
'Red' in the site plan no.1 attached.
a) Industrial Plot bearing no.C-92, situated at Focal Point
Extension, Jalandhar measuring 2500 sq. ft as per the lease
deed dated 10.07.1992, which has been shown as 'Red' in the
site plan no.2 attached.
Plaintiff no.2 is the exclusive owner in possession of the
properties shown below:
a) Property bearing no.B-XV-234 situated at Taraf Saidan,
Miller Ganj, G.T.Road, Ludhiana having an area of 323.18 sq.
yard having been purchased through two sale deeds dated
05.08.1992 having an area of 65-1/2 sq. yard registered before
the Sub-Registrar Ludhiana vide document no.8862 and Sale
deed dated 05.06.1991 having an area of 257.68 sq. yard
registered before the Sub-Registrar Ludhiana vide document
no.4262, which has been shown as 'pink' in the site plan no.3
attached.
Plaintiff no.3 is the exclusive owner in possession of the
property shown below:
a) Property bearing no.B-XIX-399-B & 399-A situated at Taraf
Gehlewal known as Maharani Jhansi Road, Civil Lines,
Ludhiana, having an area of 456 Sq. yard which is comprised
in Khata No.179/224 Khasra No.144/448 having been
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -3-
purchased vide through two separate sale deeds i.e. sale deed
having area of 222.44 sq. yard dated 20.09.1988 which was
retgistered before the Sub-Registrar Ludhiana vide document
no.11582, and sale deed having area of 234 sq. yard, dated
20.09.1988 which was registered before the Sub-Registrar
Ludhiana vide document no.11583, which has been shown
'Yellow' in the site plan no.4 attached.
Defendant no.3 is the exclusive owner in possession of the
property shown below:
a) Property bearing MC Unit No. B IX/1-905/B known as
Talwar Bhawan situated at Nehru Garden Road, Jalandhar
City bearing an area of 10 Marla 60 sq. ft. having been
purchased through sale deed dated 6.5.1963 bearing document
no.504 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jalandhar and
entered in to the record on 30.05.1963, shown 'Green' in site
plan no.5 attached.
b) Property bearing No.B-9/1/897, situated at Krishan Nagar
Jalandhar City, having an area of 7.1/2 marlas which is part
and parcel of the property comprised in Khasra no.17360/8025,
17364/8028, 8023, 25235/17358, 8011, 8024, having been
purchased through sale deed dated 24.6.1987, which was
registered on 25.06.1987 vide document no.2045 before the
Sub-Registrar, Jalandhar which has been shown 'Green' in the
site plan no.6 attached.
c) Shop bearing MC unit no.B-9/1/897, situated at Nehru
Garden Road Jalandhar City, having an area of IM-144 sq. ft
which is part and parcel of the property comprised in Khasra
No.17360/8025, 17364/8028, 8023, 8011, 25235/17358, 8022,
8024, having been purchased through sale deed dated
05.07.1990, which was registered on 09.07.1990 vide document
no.5383 before the Sub-Registrar, Jalandhar has been shown
'Green' in the site plan no.7 attached.
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -4-
d) ½ share in the property bearing MC No.B/IX/1-721/C/1/2,
property no.45, situated at Street no.9, Central Town,
Jalandhar City, having an area of 20 Marlas 206 Sq. Ft, having
been purchased through two separate sale deeds i.e. sale deed
dated 17.01.56 vide document no. 147, of area of 0K-15M-54 sq
ft registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jalandhar, and sale deed
dated 26/04/1959 vide document no.530 of area of 0K-5M-152
sq. ft registered before Sub-Registrar, Jalandhar, which has
been shown 'Green' in the site plan no.8 attached.
e) Property/House constructed on plot bearing no.30/31,
situated at Master Tara Singh Road, Jalandhar City, having an
area of OK-24M-168 sq. ft, having been purchased through two
separate sale deed dated 16.09.1994 of the area measuring
0K-14M-42 sq. ft. vide document no.5182/1 registered before
the Sub-Registrar, Jalandhar and sale deed dated 17/09/1992
of the area measuring 0K-10M-126 sq. ft. registered before the
Sub-Registrar, Jalandhar on 24/11/92 vide document
no.8107/1, which have been shown 'Green' in the site plan no.9
attached,
Defendant no.4 is the exclusive owner in possession of the
property shown below:
Property bearing no.C-93, situated at Focal Point Extension,
Jalandhar, which has been shown as 'Blue' in the site plan
no.10 attached,
As per the oral family settlement dated 01.02.2008 which was
reduced in to writing on dated 05.07.2008 to clarify the right,
title, interest of the parties of the agreement and defendants
have no right, title, interest in the properties which have been
fallen to the share of plaintiffs.
AND
Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
alienating any of the properties fell in to the share of the
plaintiffs and further restraining the defendants from
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -5-
interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in their
respective properties.”
3. The aforesaid suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on the plea
that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 4 were the coparceners of
defendant No. 1 and they constituted a Joint Hindu Family, which had been
carrying on joint business, and from the income of those businesses, the suit
properties were purchased in the names of different family members,
although they treated the said properties to be joint properties of the family.
3.1 It was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that with the passage of
time, it became impossible for the parties to keep the properties joint, and
therefore, an oral family settlement by way of oral partition of the joint
family properties was carried out on 05.07.2008, wherein the plaintiffs as
well as the defendants became exclusive owners of the respective properties
in the manner for which the relief in the suit had been claimed.
3.2 It was stated that the parties to the suit had taken possession of
the properties which fell to their respective shares, and a memorandum of
family settlement was also reduced into writing. Accordingly, the suit was
filed.
4. Upon issuance of notice, the defendants appeared and filed their
respective written statements.
4.1 Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement admitting
the relationship of the parties as well as the properties purchased from joint
funds, and also its nature as joint before 01.02.2008. Possession of the
parties in view of the settlement was also admitted by defendants No. 1 and
2. However, it was denied that they had tried to take advantage regarding
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -6-
their names incorporated in the official records. Accordingly, prayer for
dismissal of the suit was made.
4.2 On the other hand, defendants No. 3 and 4 filed their separate
written statement raising preliminary objection that the plaintiffs are guilty
of concealing true and material facts. They maintained that at the time of
oral family settlement, it was settled that plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 will jointly
pay Rs. 7,60,000/- to defendants No. 3 and 4, and plaintiffs No. 3 and 4
stood as guarantors for the said amount.
4.3 According to defendants No. 3 and 4, if the plaintiffs failed to
pay the said amount to them, then they could claim share in the properties
falling to the share of the plaintiffs to the extent of said amount along with
interest.
5. From the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed
by the learned Trial Court:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as
prayed for?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent,
injunction as prayed for?OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiffs are guilty of approaching this court
with soiled hands?OPD
4. Whether the present suit is not filed as per provisions of
the Order 7 rule 11(e) of CPC and is liable to be
dismissed?OPD
5. Whether the site plan attached with the plaint is not
correct?OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean
hands and has concealed the material facts from the
court?OPD.
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -7-
7. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the
present suit?OPD
8. Whether the plaintiffs just to harass the defendants have
filed the present suit and the suit is not maintainable and
no cause of action has arisen to file the present suit?OPD
9. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own acts and
conducts to file the present suit?OPD
10. Relief.”
6. In order to prove its case, the plaintiffs examined
PW1 - Lovekesh Talwar, who tendered his affidavit in his
Examination-in-Chief on 22.08.2012 and thereafter he failed to step into the
witness box for his cross-examination.
6.1 It appears that the plaintiffs did not produce any other evidence
despite availing sufficient opportunities, including last opportunity.
Accordingly, the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by court order.
7. Considering the fact, that the plaintiffs have failed to lead any
evidence in support of their case, the findings on issues No. 1 and 2 were
returned against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendants. Consequently,
the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by learned Trial Court vide
judgment and decree dated 19.03.2013.
8. Evidently, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the
aforesaid the learned Trial court judgment and decree dated 19.03.2013, on
30.04.2018 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned
Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.
9. The learned First Appellate Court framed an issue as to whether
there were sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -8-
9.1 After considering the matter, the learned First Appellate Court,
vide its judgment and decree dated 02.05.2026, dismissed the appeal filed by
the plaintiffs as not maintainable, as there was no justified ground to
condone the delay in filing the appeal.
10. In the aforementioned circumstances, present regular second
appeal has been filed by appellant/defendant before this Court.
11. I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellants as
well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of caveator/respondents No.1
and 2 and perused the paperbook with his able assistance.
12. In the present case, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the
suit of the appellants primarily on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to
lead any evidence in support of their claim in the suit.
13. Concededly, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by
the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 19.03.2013, however, the
present appellants challenged the learned Trial Court’s judgment after a gap
of about 5 years on 30.04.2018 along with an application seeking
condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
14.  On the question of condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the recent judgment in  “H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah
Since Deceased by LRS”, (2025) SCC Online SC 54 ; has held that question
of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. Paragraph nos.13 to 19
of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Guruswamy
(supra) will be relevant for perusal, which reads as under:
“ 13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court
overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -9-
for the High Court to ignore all this? Time and again, the
Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the
High courts that the concepts such as "liberal approach",
"Justice oriented approach", "substantial justice" should not be
employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of
limitation.
14. We are constrained to observe that the High Court has
exhibited complete absence of judicial conscience and
restraints, which a judge is expected to maintain while
adjudicating a lis between the parties.
15. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of
parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to
dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which
the court must take into consideration while considering
whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of
the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they
want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of
instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a
period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his
right to have the matter considered on merits because of his
own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-
deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he
cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to
be preferred as against the technical considerations. While
considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must
not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a
duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered
by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient
cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other
side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the
merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -10-
17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not
merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are
based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of
equity. No court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging
over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.
18. For all the foregoing reasons this appeal succeeds and is
hereby allowed.
19. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside
and that of the Trial Court dated 05.08.2014 passed in Misc.
No. 223 of 2006 is hereby restored…”
14.1              In  “Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran & Anr.” 2025 SCC
Online SC 1093 , in para Nos.31 and 32, Hon'ble the Supreme Court
observed as under:
"31. It is a well-settled law that while considering the plea for
condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is
to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the
party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits
of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons given
for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side
is equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may
consider the merits of the main matter for the purpose of
condoning the delay.
32. Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasised in several
cases that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of
generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at
the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the
present case, the respondents/defendants have failed to
demonstrate reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the
matter, and this crucial requirement for condoning the delay
remains unmet."
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -11-
14.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported
in  “MANU/SC/1262/2025, Shivamma (Dead) by LRS v. Karnataka
Housing Board & Others” , has held as under:
"263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping
scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance
of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with
limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and
its elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such
litigation deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold,
because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever
reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal,
unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of
litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts
of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant
is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.
264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and
apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the
process of law…”
15. Now, coming to the case in hand, learned First Appellate Court
did not find any justified ground for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal, by holding as under:-
“14. It means that applicants i.e. Lovekesh Talwar and Amita
Talwar filed the present application for condonation of delay in
filing the present appeal. Their main plea is that they are
compelled to file the present appeal as defendant No.3 Sushil
Kumar Talwar has resiled from the family settlement and many
meetings had been arranged between the parties, but the matter
has not been resolved. So they have filed the present appeal and
then the above noted application for condonation of delay in
filing the appeal has been filed.
15. Regarding it, this court is of the consideration opinion
that originally when the applicants/plaintiffs have filed a suit
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -12-
they have based their entire claim on the family settlement
dated 01.02.2008 which was reduced into writing on
05.07.2008 vide which a family settlement had taken place
between the members of the family of defendant No.1 Surinder
Kumar Talwar. Even they have made all the members of the
family of Surinder Kumar Talwar including Surinder Kumar
Talwar the parties to the above noted suit who have
participated in the oral family settlement dated 01.02.2008
which had been reduced into writing on 05.07.2008. The above
noted suit had been filed to clarify the right, title, interest of the
parties of the above noted family settlement. Even the other
party had also appeared and the case had been fixed for
plaintiff's evidence. Ample opportunities had been given to the
plaintiffs to lead. their evidence, but they have not led any
evidence and the affidavit of PW1 Lovekesh Talwar has been
tendered into evidence, but lateron he never turned up for cross
examination and did not lead any evidence despite availing
numerous opportunities.
16. Now, it is for the appellants/plaintiffs to explain that if
they have filed the above noted suit by claiming their title/right
upon the property which had come to their shares on the basis
of above noted family settlement, then why they have not
pursued the same though it remained pending for about three
years. Even if the plea of applicants is believed that the parties
agreed to the comply with the terms of above noted family
settlement, even then it should be brought into the record that
both the parties would abide by the terms of the family
settlement and they would become owners and rights have been
created in favour of the parties on the basis of above noted
family settlement regarding the properties which have been
mentioned in the above noted family partition. But nothing has
been brought on the record regarding it. Rather, after about
more than five years, the applicants/plaintiffs have filed the
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -13-
present application by stating that defendant Sushil Kumar
Talwar has been resiling from the terms of the family settlement
and even the efforts made for compromise have been failed
amongst the members of the family. But it is no ground to
condone the delay in filing the present appeal. Rather, the
applicants/plaintiffs are bound to explain the delay of each and
every day for filing the appeal. Rather, it has come on the
record in the present case that entire case of the applicants is
based upon the above noted memorandum of family settlement
and by filing the above noted suit, they wanted to get clarify
their right/title or interest on the properties which came to their
shares on the basis of above noted memorandum of family
settlement and even the parties to the above noted family
settlement have been made party to the above noted suit, but
even then plaintiffs have not pursued the suit and it has been
dismissed and even they have slept for more than five years in
filing the appeal.
17. So, in view of above noted discussion, there is no justified
ground to condone the unjustified delay in filing the present
appeal. So, the present appeal is not maintainable and the same
has been dismissed, with no orders as to costs. Memo of costs
be prepared accordingly. Record of Trial Court be returned
alongwith copy of order by Ahlmad for compliance, whereas
file of this court be consigned to Record Room after due
compilation.”
16. Having considered the case of the appellants on the touchstone
of the judicial pronouncements referred above, it is apparent that the
appellants have failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal
within the period of limitation and/or reasonable time. Therefore, no fault
can be found with the judgment dated 02.05.2026 passed by the learned First
Appellate Court.
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh

RSA-2718-2026 (O&M) -14-
17. Resultantly, the present regular second appeal fails and same is
accordingly, dismissed .
18. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(HARSH BUNGER)
08.09.2026 JUDGE
Ankit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
ANKIT
2026.09.10 12:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh