Lajwanti vs Kamla Devi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.292 of 1995 (O&M)
Reserved on : 01.07.2026
Pronounced on : 11.09.2026
LAJWANTI ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
KAMLA DEVI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate and
Mr. Anshuman Sethi, Advocate
for appellant.
Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Khushan Dutta, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 14.
PARMOD GOYAL, J.
Present appeal has been preferred by appellant-defendant being
aggrieved by concurrent findings of Courts below vide impugned judgment
and decree dated 09.10.1991 passed by Sub-Judge, II Class, Hissar and by
judgment and decree dated 30.09.1994 passed by learned Additional District
Judge, Hisar, whereby suit of respondents-plaintiffs was decreed and first
appeal preferred by defendants was dismissed.
2. Respondents-plaintiffs vide their suit for declaration had sought
declaration that they are owner in possession to the extent of 55/192 share
i.e. land measuring 122 kanals 17 marlas out of land measuring 428 kanals
16 marlas situated at Mauza, Hisar. The claim of respondents-plaintiffs was
based upon judgment and decree dated 25.04.1975 which was passed on the
basis of compromise between plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5.
Respondents-plaintiffs had also challenged mutation No.403 sanctioned on
22.07.1973 to be illegal, wrong, without jurisdiction, result of fraud and
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -2-
misrepresentation and had claimed that on the basis of said mutation, the
subsequent sale deeds/lease deeds have no effect on the rights of plaintiffs.
3. Defendants on the other hand claimed suit not maintainable
being barred by principles of Order II Rule 2 and Order XXIII of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘ CPC ’) . It was asserted that mutation of redemption
was entered and sanctioned according to law and compromise decree passed
by District Judge was never acted upon. It was asserted that mutation of
partition was also rightly sanctioned. Selling of land in excess of their share
by defendants was denied and purchasers from defendants No.1 to 5 claimed
themselves to be bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice.
Appellant is one of such subsequent purchaser.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:-
I. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of 55/192 share of
the suit land on the basis of compromise decree dated
25.04.75 as alleged in the plaint ?
II. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get their names
entered in the revenue record as owner of agricultural
land 55/192 share in the suit land after setting aside
the transfers made by defendants No.1 to 5 along with
mutation no.403, 404 and subsequent mutation on the
basis of family settlement and sale deed and lease
deeds as alleged in the plaint ? OPP.
III. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to take possession
on 55/192 share of the suit land on the basis of title as
alleged in the plaint ? OPP
IV. Whether the land in dispute has been allotted in
consolidation in lieu of old khasra numbers fully
mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint ? OPP
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -3-
V. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous and
baseless and the same is liable to dismissed ? OPD
VI. Whether the defendants are entitled to compensatory
costs under section 35-A CPC ? OPD
VII. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in
the present form ? OPD
VIII. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try
the present suit ? OPD
IX. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred under
section 11 and 47 CPC and order II Rule 2 Order 23
CPC ? OPD
X. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the
present suit by their act and conduct ? OPD
XI. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred for mis-
joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD
XII. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred ? OPD
XIII. Whether the plaintiff does not disclose cause of action
if so to what effect ? OPD
XIV. Whether the plaintiffs has no locus standi to file the
present suit ? OPD
XV. Whether the plaint is not signed and verified according
to law, if so to what effect ? OPD
XVI. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred for
multifariousness of cause of action ? OPD
XVII. Whether the defendants are bonafide purchasers for
consideration without notice ? If so what effect ? OPD.
XVIII. Relief.
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -4-
5. Issues No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 17 were decided in
favour of plaintiffs and against defendants. Issue No.6 to 8 were decided
against defendants in favour of plaintiffs. On appeal by appellants-
defendants, findings of learned trial Court were upheld on all the issues and
first appeal preferred by appellants-defendants was accordingly dismissed.
6. In present case, three appeals were preferred against judgment
and decrees dated 09.10.1991 and 30.09.1994. Defendants No.4 and 5 had
preferred RSA No.10 of 1995 titled Sham Lal Vs. Kamla Devi and Ors. ,
which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.08.2006 passed by
this Court. Defendants No.4 and 5 were the original land owners who
claimed ownership over suit property. The second RSA No.713 of 1995
titled Ruli Ram Vs. Kamla Devi and Ors . was preferred by defendant
No.12, however, same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.05.2025.
Present RSA No.292 of 1995 is the third appeal filed by legal representatives
of defendant No.13, namely Lajwanti. Defendants No.12 and 13 (appellants
in RSA No.713 of 1995 and RSA No.292 of 1995) are the persons who had
purchased the suit property subsequently, from defendants No.4 and 5 or
from person to whom defendants No.4 and 5 had sold the property.
7. Suit in present case is second round of litigation between
respondents-plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5 (original land owners)
claiming ownership over suit property. In first round of litigation, plaintiffs
had sought declaration that they have become owners in possession of suit
land as they were the mortgagee in possession since 1957-1958 and
mortgage was not redeemed within time. The said suit preferred by plaintiffs
was dismissed by the then learned Senior Sub Judge, Hisar vide judgment
and decree dated 27.07.1969. Present respondents-plaintiffs aggrieved by
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -5-
judgment and decree dated 27.07.1969 had preferred an appeal, whereby
matter was remanded back to the Court of First Instance vide judgment and
decree dated 17.02.1972 passed by learned First Appellate Court. On
remand, learned Court of First Instance i.e. Court of learned Senior Sub
Judge, Hisar had partially decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated
15.02.1973. Both the parties i.e. plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 10 had
preferred their respective appeals against judgment and decree dated
15.02.1973 by way of appeal No.656 of 1973. During the pendency of
appeal, parties had arrived at compromise on 25.04.1975 and as per said
compromise, plaintiffs were declared owners in possession to the extent of
55/192 of the suit property whereas defendants No.1 to 5 were declared
owners in possession of 137/192 share of suit land. Defendants No.6 to 10
were held to be persons claiming their rights under defendants No.1 to 5.
Judgment and decree passed on the basis of compromise between plaintiffs
and defendants No.1 to 10 was duly placed on record as Ex.P10 and Ex.P11.
It is on the basis of compromise decree dated 25.04.1975, plaintiffs are
claiming their right over the suit property being owners in possession to the
extent of 55/192 share in the suit property.
8. On the other hand, defendants No.4 and 5 have not denied
previous round of litigation and passing of judgments and decrees dated
27.07.1969, 17.02.1972, 15.02.1973 and 25.04.1975. However, defendants
had taken stand that compromise was never acted upon, therefore plaintiffs
have no right over the suit property.
9. The actual dispute in present fact in fact had arisen on account
of mutation No.403 dated 22.07.1973 (Ex.P13), whereby defendants No.4
and 5 Din Dayal and Sham Lal got mutation in their favour regarding suit
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -6-
land on the basis of judgment and decree dated 27.07.1969 which stood set
aside by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 17.02.1972 as
well as judgment and decree dated 15.02.1973 passed by learned Court of
First Instance subsequent to remand of case by learned First Appellate
Court. Subsequently, on the basis of mutation No.403 dated 22.07.1973,
defendants No.1 to 3 entered into family settlement in favour of defendants
No. 4 and 5.
10. Present appellant claims to have purchased 7 kanals 7 marlas
i.e. rectangle No.193//20(7-7) vide sale deed dated 5461 dated 05.03.1981
from Din Dayal and Sham Lal who had suffered compromise decree dated
25.04.1975.
11. It is also not in dispute that defendant Sham Lal and Deen
Dayal who were representing share of defendants No.1 to 3 had also
preferred a regular second appeal against impugned judgments, however,
same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.08.2006. It is also not
in dispute that in previous litigation, which had culminated into judgment
and decree dated 25.04.1975, present appellant was not a party and had
acquired interest in suit property only on 05.03.1981 when she purchased 07
kanals 07 marlas vide sale deed No.5461 dated 05.03.1981.
12. Appellant is claiming herself to be bona fide purchaser for
consideration. As far as present appellant is concerned, she has got no right
to challenge compromise decree dated 25.04.1975 which was suffered by
defendants No.1 to 10 in favour of plaintiffs. Defendants No.4 and 5 had
resisted compromise decree dated 25.04.1975 on the ground that same was
never acted upon and therefore no rights had ever accrued in favour of
plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 25.04.1975 (Ex.P11) wherein it
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -7-
was concluded that compromise decree was rightly passed and could have
been challenged by defendants No.4 and 5 only by way of application under
Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC and the compromise decree based upon
compromise between the parties could not have been challenged in present
proceedings and is therefore binding upon defendants No.1 to 10 against
whom compromise decree was passed.
13. On consideration, I find that conclusion drawn by both the
Courts as regards to validity of compromise decree dated 25.04.1975 is
concerned, same is in accordance with law. The same could not have been
challenged in present proceedings as same could only be challenged by way
of application under Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC before the First Appellate
Court which had passed judgment and decree dated 25.04.1975,. The said
Course was never adopted. Therefore, the rights of parties regarding
ownership over the suit property stood settled in previous litigation and
could not be gone into by the Court in present proceedings. In present suit,
the Court was to and had actually proceeded as per rights so determined vide
judgment and decree dated 25.04.1975.
14. Judgment and decree dated 25.04.1975 is binding upon the
rights of plaintiffs on the one hand and on the other hand upon rights of
defendants No.1 to 10. The conclusion drawn by both the Courts that
plaintiffs are owners in possession to the extent of 55/192 share cannot be
faulted with and is accordingly upheld.
15. Moreover, present appellant-Lajwanti has no right to challenge
the judgment and decree dated 25.04.1975 as she was not party to the same.
The same could have been challenged only by defendants No.1 to 10. Except
for defendants No.4 and 5, no other defendant from defendants No.1 to 10
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -8-
had preferred an appeal, rather all of them had accepted the findings
recorded vide impugned judgments. Only defendants No.4 and 5 had
approached this Court vide RSA No.10 of 1995, which they had withdrawn
on 08.01.2006, thereby accepting the findings of learned Courts below
recorded vide impugned judgments and once defendants i.e. predecessor in
interest of defendant No.13 i.e. present appellant had accepted the
compromise decree dated 25.04.1975, the successor in interest of defendants
No.4 and 5 would automatically be bound by the same. Therefore, there is
no merit in contention raised on behalf of appellant that compromise decree
dated 25.04.1975 is not binding and that plaintiffs have no right over the suit
property.
16. Appellant-defendant No.13, who had purchased the property in
the year 1981 from defendants No.4 and 5 had also claimed herself to be a
bona fide purchaser for consideration, however, learned Courts below have
rightly rejected the claim so made by appellant-defendant No.13. From the
facts, circumstances and evidence on record, it is clearly proved that
appellant-defendant No.13 cannot be held to be a bona fide purchaser as no
bona fide inquiries were made by appellant-defendant No.13 and she had not
exercised due diligence before purchasing the suit property. The claim of
ownership by defendants No.4 and 5 is merely based upon mutation No.403
dated 22.07.1973, which was entered by revenue authorities on the basis of
judgment and decree dated 27.07.1969.
17. It is pertinent to mention that said mutation entry was wrongly
entered by revenue authorities and had resulted into unnecessary litigation
for more than 50 years, giving opportunity to defendants No.4 and 5 to sell
property on the basis of said mutation entry, which was wrongly entered by
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -9-
revenue authorities, as on the date of mutation entry dated 22.07.1973, the
judgment and decree dated 27.07.1969 had already been set aside by learned
First Appellate Court by way of remand and also by learned Court of First
Instance as fresh judgment dated 05.02.1973 was pronounced whereby suit
of plaintiffs was partially decreed against which both the parties i.e.
plaintiffs as well as defendants had approached First Appellate Court which
had culminated in compromise decree dated 25.04.1975. Had appellant-
defendant No.13 been bona fide purchaser, she would have come to know
that subsequent to mutation entry No.403 dated 22.07.1973 based upon
judgment and decree dated 27.07.1969, the judgment and decree dated
27.07.1969 stood set aside and in the year 1975, mater was compromised
and ownership to the extent of 55/192 share of plaintiffs was duly
acknowledged by defendants. Even mutation No.403 dated 22.07.1973
clearly make reference to judgment and decree dated 27.07.1969, therefore,
it was incumbent upon appellant-defendant No.13 to make proper inquiry
about the pendency of appeal and subsequent orders passed in appeal which
appellant-defendant No.13 had not done and therefore appellant-defendant
No.13 cannot be held to be a bona fide purchaser.
18. Therefore, there is no merit in present appeal preferred by
appellant-defendant No.13 and her rights would flow from entitlement of
defendants No.4 and 5 who were owner only to the extent of 137/192 share
in suit property and could have sold suit property to the extent of said share,
as plaintiffs are owners in possession of remaining land to the extent of
55/192 share. Since defendants No.4 and 5 had no title in their favour in
excess of 137/192 share, they could not have passed better title to
subsequent purchaser against the rights of plaintiffs who are held owners in
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -10-
possession to the extent of 55/192 share.
19. Before parting with the present matter, it is important to note
down that present litigation is pure result of wrongful mutation entries made
by revenue authorities. Time and again, Courts have held that mutation
entries are meant only for fiscal purposes and they do not confer/create or
extinguish ownership rights in favour of party in whose favor mutation
entries are made.
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitender Singh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Ors. , 2021 (4) RCR Civil 883, had held as under:
“5. XXXXXXXXX
As per per the settled proposition of law, if there is any
dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the
mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the
party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to
approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights
crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision
before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made.
6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of
Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997)
7 SCC 137 , this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of
mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property
in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the
property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries
are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue.
Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions
thereafter.
6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner,
(2007) 6 SCC 186 , it is observed and held by this Court that an
entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person
whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue
records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment
of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -11-
such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the
property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent
civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of
Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58;
Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v.
State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368, Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T.
Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai
Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3
SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC
259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.”
21. Similar view was taken by hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamnabai
and Ors. Vs. Vasudev and Ors. , SLP (C) No.39 of 2026 decided on
20.08.2026 wherein it was held that:-
“22. Equally, the mutation recorded pursuant to Ex.D22 could
not by itself extinguish Ramprasad’s title. It is settled law that
an entry in the revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes
title and exists essentially for fiscal purposes, as held by this
Court in Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and Others . The order of the
Naib Tehsildar may regulate the revenue record, but it cannot,
merely by recording one person's name in place of another,
operate as a conveyance relinquishment of proprietary rights,
and the civil court remains fully competent or a to determine
the underlying title, which the revenue entry follows rather than
creates. The of correctness statutory presumption attaching to a
revenue entry under Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code 1959 is a rebuttable evidentiary presumption
and not a presumption of title, and it must be weighed along
with the rest of the evidence, which the first appellate court did,
finding it displaced for the specific reasons recorded above.
For these reasons the High Court fell into error in holding that
Ex.D5, whether taken alone or together with the revenue
proceedings under Ex.D22, established that Ramprasad had
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -12-
relinquished his proprietary interest in the suit property.”
22. However, despite clear mandate of law unfortunately, mutation
entries are being given great importance and are being made selectively by
revenue authorities. The sale deeds are being allowed to be executed merely
on the basis of mutation entries without recording mutation of sale deeds
executed by previous owner, which gives rise to unnecessary litigation and
loss to the original owner who had duly purchased the property by valid title
deed. In present case also, judgment and decree dated 27.07.1969 on the
basis of which mutation entry was made in revenue records on 22.07.1973
already stood set aside vide orders passed by appellate Court and also by
Court of first instance on remand by appellate Court vide judgments and
decrees dated 17.02.1972 and 15.02.1973. The mutation entry No.403 dated
22.07.1973 were not only wrong and were clearly made with mala fide
intention for extraneous consideration. Such illegal and dishonest act of
revenue authorities had resulted in litigation spanning for more than 50
years. Lawful owners have been running from pillar to post.
23. It is, therefore, necessary to direct revenue authorities to ensure
that all sale deeds executed by owner of suit property be duly noticed in
revenue records. Due mutation be entered as per rules and in case of any
dispute, the entry regarding disputed issue be made and matter be left to the
Courts to decide the dispute between the parties. Revenue authorities have
no right to settle and decide title of the parties. Selective entries regarding
sale made through sale deed or Court orders if made or not made would
make such official liable personally for any such willful omission or
wrongful entries. The issue of title can only be decided by Civil Courts.
Therefore, whenever a sale deed, gift deed, or will is made and is sought to
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -13-
be mutated, the same needs to be entered in the revenue record and in case
there is no dispute, the mutation be entered according to rules as per title
deed and in case revenue authorities find that there is some serious dispute
regarding title, they will notice the claim made by respective parties in the
revenue records and relegate the parties to approach Civil Courts for
adjudication of their respective rights. This will ensure that unnecessary
illegal sales are not made merely on the basis of mutation entries, which
cannot sustain scrutiny of the Civil Courts, which alone has the right to
decide title over a property.
24. In case there is no provision in the revenue rules to make
entries, the revenue authorities shall make the entries under the orders of this
Court and seek appropriate amendment in rules in compliance of this
judgment. By adopting above course, large number of unnecessary cases and
acts of fraudulent transaction can be avoided. Copy of this judgment be sent
to Secretary, Revenue as well Chief Secretary, State of Punjab and Haryana
for compliance. State shall also fix responsibility of erring revenue officials
who fail to act despite these directions. Entries be made regarding sale gift,
will etc in the revenue records which must be reflected as and when certified
copy of record is taken by the parties so that illegal transfer without notice to
concerned parties is not made at the discretion of Sub-Registrar/Revenue
Authorities. Revenue authorities shall also take steps to record entries which
have not been made despite registered sale deeds and Court orders which
have attained finality.
25. In view of above discussion, present appeal is dismissed being
without any merit.
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA No.292 of 1995 -14-
26. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
11.09.2026 JUDGE
Sunil Chander
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SUNIL CHANDER
2026.09.14 18:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document