Mohan Lal and Ors. Vs Ruldu Ram and Ors.

Pr e sent Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and d ecree dated 17.12.1993 passe d by the learned Lower Appellate Court, whereb y the appeal filed by the plai n tiff Ruldu Ram was allowed, the judgment and d ecree dated 03.04.1991 passed b y the learned Trial Court were set aside and the s u it of the plaintiff was decreed, w hereas the learned Trial Court h ad dismissed the s u it of the plaintiff Ruldu Ram.

¶17

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 2 -

¶19

Brief Facts

¶20

Th e plaintiff had instituted the suit for possession of half share by w ay of partition of t he property in dispute, shown by letters ABCD in the site p lan attached with t h e plaint, and bounded as under:

¶21

East: House of Shaheeda (n o w house of Ram Lal)

¶22

West: Thorough fare North: House of Kaka (now Sohan Lal son of Umra) South: House of Sarda Ram ( now house of Mata Bux)

¶23

Th e suit property is situated within the limits of Munic i pal Committee, Ro p ar.

¶24

Th e plaintiff further sought the r elief of permanent injunction for restraining the d efendants from alienating the p roperty in dispute and from rai s ing any constructio n over it. It was averred that t h e disputed property was purch a sed by Mata Bux a n d Devi Dayal vide sale deed da t ed 26.08.1925 from Smt. Ralli w ife of Kheva, resi d ent of Ropar, for a considerat i on of Rs.99/-. It was pleaded t hat Mata Bux was t he father of the plaintiff Ruld u Ram and that Devi Dayal was the predecessor-in- i nterest of defendants-responde n ts No.1 to 6. It was further pleaded that after the d eath of Mata Bux, the plaint i ff inherited his half share in the disputed prope r ty, whereas the defendants also inherited the remaining half s h are in the disputed p roperty from Devi Dayal. Acc o rding to the plaintiff, the prop e rty in dispute was still joint. It was pleaded tha t the defendants intended to r a ise construction ov e r the disputed property and tha t defendant No.7 Mohan Lal alleged to have purcha s ed some portion out of the dis p uted property. On these pleadi n gs,

¶25

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 3 -

¶27

the plaintiff pr a yed for partition of the dispu t ed property for its better use and enjoyment.

¶28

Th e suit was contested by the def e ndants by filing written statem e nt. Several prelimi n ary objections were raised. Fir s tly, it was pleaded that the plai n tiff had no locus st a ndi to file the suit. Secondly, i t was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in the present form, as defendant No.7 Mohan Lal was its exclu s ive owner in posse s sion. Thirdly, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and co n duct from filing the suit. Fourt h ly, it was pleaded that the suit w as bad for misjoin d er and non-joinder of necessar y parties. 5. O n merits, it was pleaded that Mata Bux and Devi Dayal h ad purchased pro p erty adjacent to the property in dispute vide sale deed d a ted 26.08.1925, an d that the site plan produced by t he plaintiff was not correct. It w as pleaded that th e disputed property shown by le t ters ABCD was not purchased v ide sale deed dated 26.08.1925. It was further plea d ed that the plaintiff had no con c ern with the disput e d property and that he had not inherited the same from his fat h er. According to t h e defendants, the property in d ispute was exclusively owne d by Devi Dayal, w h o gave it to Faqir Chand, his s o n, during his lifetime. Faqir Chand raised construction over the disputed property i n the year 1955-56 and remaine d in possession as it s exclusive owner. It was plead e d that the plaintiff never raised any objection at the time when the construction was made. 6. It w as further pleaded that Sheel a Devi, defendant-respondent N o .8, wife of Mohan Lal defendant-respondent No. 7 , purchased the disputed prop e rty from Banti Dev i and other defendants-responde n ts vide sale deed dated 11.04.1 9 85 for a considerat i on of Rs.20,000/-, and since th e n defendant No.7 Mohan Lal al o ng

¶29

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 4 -

¶31

with his family m embers had been residing in t h e disputed property. It was pleaded that the plaintif f had no right to seek partition o f the disputed property. 7. Fr o m the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the

¶32

following issue s :

¶33

Whether the father of the p laintiff and Devi Dayal purch a sed the suit property on 26.08.1925? O P P.

¶34

Whether the plaintiff is a co - sharer to the extent of 1/2 shar e in po s session of the suit property wit h the defendants? OPP.

¶35

Whether the suit is not main t ainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is est o pped by his own act and con d uct fro m filing the present suit? OPD.

¶36

Whether the suit is bad f o r non-joinder and mis-joinde r of

¶37

ne c essary parties? OPD.

¶38

Whether the suit is not valu e d properly for the purposes of c o urt fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

¶39

Relief.

¶40

Findings of the Trial Court

¶41

Th e learned Trial Court took up Issues No.1 to 4 together, b e ing interlinked. Up o n appreciation of the oral an d documentary evidence, the C o urt held that altho u gh a vacant site was purchased by Mata Bux and Devi Dial to the extent of ½ sh a re each vide sale deed dated 26.08.1925 (Ex.P2), the said va c ant site had alread y been partitioned between the m . It was found that the sout h ern portion of the property came to the share o f Mata Bux, whereas the nort h ern portion, which is the property in dispute, came to the share of Devi Dial.

¶42

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 5 -

¶44

Th e Trial Court further held that t he disputed property was inher i ted by Faqir Chand son of Devi Dial, who raised c o nstruction over it in the year 19 5 5– 56. After the de a th of Faqir Chand, the propert y devolved upon his legal heirs, w ho subsequently s o ld it to Sheela Devi (defendant No.8) vide sale deed Ex.D1 d a ted 11.04.1985. The execution of the said sale d eed was duly proved through the statements of D W 3 Bant Devi, DW2 Gurdayal S ingh (attesting witness), and D W 5 Sheela Devi. T h e Court also noticed the admis s ion of the plaintiff as PW1 that the construction w a s raised by Faqir Chand in 1955–56 and that he never objecte d to the same.

¶45

O n comparison of the site plan Ex.P1 relied upon by the plaintiff w ith site plan Ex.P3 attached with the sale deed E x .P2, the Trial Court found that the dimensions an d boundaries did not tally, the r eby holding that the plaintiff h ad failed to establish that the disputed property formed part of the joint prop e rty purchased unde r sale deed dated 26.08.1925. T h e Court concluded that the plai n tiff was not a co-sharer in the disputed property an d had been seeing Faqir Chand and thereafter his l e gal heirs and Sheela Devi in p ossession of the disputed prop e rty since 1955. Co n sequently, the plaintiff was h e ld to be estopped by his act and conduct from fi l ing the suit.

¶46

Ac c ordingly, Issues No.1 to 4 wer e decided against the plaintiff an d in favour of the d efendants, holding that the pl a intiff was neither a co-sharer nor entitled to seek p artition and that the suit was n o t maintainable. 12. Iss u e No.5 relating to misjoinder a nd non-joinder of parties was h eld to have beco m e redundant, as Sheela Devi had already been impleaded as defendant No.8 pursuant to amendment allowe d on 10.08.1989.

¶47

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 6 -

¶49

Iss u e No.6 regarding valuation f or court fee and jurisdiction w as decided against the defendants and in favour o f the plaintiff, as no evidence w as led by the defe n dants to substantiate the said ob j ection.

¶50

O n the basis of the findings on I ssues No.1 to 6, the learned T rial Court dismisse d the suit of the plaintiff .

¶51

Findings of the Lower Appellate Court

¶52

Th e learned Lower Appellate Cou r t, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and r e-appreciating the entire oral a n d documentary evidence on rec o rd, found that the l e arned Trial Court had erroneou s ly decided Issues No.1 to 4 against the plaintiff. T h e Lower Appellate Court held t h at it stood admitted on record t hat the property w a s purchased jointly by Mata Bux and Devi Dayal vide sale d eed dated 26.08.19 2 5 (Ex.P2) and that the executi o n of the said sale deed was not in dispute. The pl e a taken by the defendants tha t the property purchased vide s ale deed dated 26. 0 8.1925 was only adjacent to th e disputed property was found t o be incorrect and e v asive.

¶53

Th e Lower Appellate Court furthe r held that there was no pleadin g or evidence on be h alf of the defendants to show t h at the property purchased vide s ale deed dated 26. 0 8.1925 was ever partitioned b e tween Mata Bux and Devi Da y al, and therefore t h e learned Trial Court was not justified in constructing a theor y of partition on its o wn. On comparison of the site p lan Ex.P1 with the site plan E x .P3 attached with t h e sale deed Ex.P2, and in vi e w of the admissions made by the defendants’ wit n esses, including DW2 Gurdial Singh, DW3 Banti Devi and D W 4 Sadhu Ram, th e Lower Appellate Court held t hat the boundaries of the disp u ted property tally w ith the property purchased vide s ale deed dated 26.08.1925.

¶54

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶55

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 7 -

¶56

Th e Lower Appellate Court also t ook note of the admissions of the defendants’ wi t nesses that on the eastern sid e of the disputed property was the house of Ram L al, on the western side was a thoroughfare, on the northern s ide was the house o f Sohan Lal and on the southe r n side was the house of Mata B ux, thereby fully s u pporting the site plan Ex.P1 p roduced by the plaintiff. On t his basis, the Cou r t held that the disputed prope r ty is the same which was joi n tly purchased by M ata Bux and Devi Dayal. 18. O n the question of estoppel, the Lower Appellate Court held that the mere fact that F a qir Chand had raised construct i on in 1955–56 and that the plai n tiff did not object a t that time, did not divest the p laintiff of his title. It was held t hat inaction or sile n ce does not amount to acquie s cence unless it results in frau d or deprivation of l egal right. The plea of estopp e l accepted by the Trial Court w as thus held to be l egally unsustainable, particular l y when Faqir Chand and there a fter Sheela Devi de r ived title with full knowledge t h at the property was joint. 19. Co n sequently, the Lower Appella t e Court held that the plaintiff i s a co-sharer to th e extent of half share in the d i sputed property, that the suit w as maintainable, a n d that the findings of the Tri a l Court on Issues No.1 to 4 w ere liable to be re v ersed. The appeal was accor d ingly allowed, the judgment and decree of the T r ial Court were set aside, and th e suit of the plaintiff was decree d by passing a preli m inary decree for partition, hold i ng the plaintiff and defendant N o.8 Sheela Devi to be co-owners to the extent of h alf share each, with a direction for appointment of a Local Commissioner for effec t ing partition by metes and bounds. 20. Aggrieved by the judgment and d e cree of the lower Appellate C o urt, the defendant N o.7-Mohan Lal and his wife a p proached this Court by way of the

¶57

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 8 -

¶59

present regular second appeal for setting aside the same. Respondent No.1, b e ing contesting resp o ndent, chose to contest the ap p eal. Respondents No.3 to 7 b e ing proforma respo n dents proceeded against ex-par t e.

¶60

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants

¶61

Le a rned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment and decree passed b y the learned Lower Appellate Court suffer from serious error s of fact and law a n d deserve to be set aside. It w a s contended that the learned T rial Court had rig h tly dismissed the suit after a proper appreciation of oral and documentary e v idence, but the learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the w ellreasoned findin g s merely on conjectures and su r mises. 22. It w as argued that the identity of the suit property itself is doub t ful, and the plaintif f has failed to establish that the d isputed property is the same as the one purchased v ide sale deed dated 26.08.192 5 . According to the appellants, the site plan Ex.P1 , relied upon by the plaintiff, d oes not mention clear and reli a ble dimensions or m easurements, and therefore ca n not form the basis for identif y ing the suit prope r ty. It was submitted that the plaintiff took inconsistent st a nds regarding meas u rements, as on one hand he w a s unable to specify the dimens i ons of the property claimed by him, while on th e other hand he asserted certa i nty regarding the d i mensions of another property a llegedly purchased under the s a me sale deed.

¶62

Le a rned counsel further contend e d that the dimensions show n in Ex.P1 do not t a lly with the dimensions emerging from the site plans Ex.D2 and Ex.D3, which w ere proved on record by the d efendants. It was argued that the property purch a sed in 1925 was a vacant site, whereas the property presentl y in TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 9 -

¶64

possession of t h e appellants is a constructed house, raised long ago in 1955–5 6 by Faqir Chand, a n d the plaintiff admittedly neve r raised any objection at that ti m e. The long lapse of nearly 35 years before the i n stitution of the suit clearly sh o ws that the plaintif f never treated the disputed prop e rty as joint. 24. It w as also submitted that the sale deed dated 11.04.1985 in favou r of Sheela Devi has never been challenged by the plaintiff, and once the title of the appellants stan d s established through a registe r ed sale deed, the suit for parti t ion cannot be susta i ned. According to learned cou n sel, even if the preliminary de c ree as passed by t h e Lower Appellate Court is upheld, it would be incapabl e of execution, as th e identity and measurements of t he suit property remain uncerta i n. 25. Le a rned counsel emphasized that t he learned Lower Appellate C o urt ignored the vit a l admissions of the plaintiff reg a rding construction raised in 19 5 5– 56 and failed t o attach due weight to the d e fendants’ site plans, which w ere supported by m easurements and municipal r ecord. It was submitted that the reversal of the Trial Court judgment has resulted in grave miscarriage of jus t ice and the finding s of the Trial Court deserve to b e restored. Submissions on behalf of Respondent No.1

¶65

Pe r contra , learned counsel for th e respondent-plaintiff supported the judgment and d ecree passed by the learned Lo w er Appellate Court and submi t ted that the same i s based on a correct and lawf u l appreciation of evidence. It w as argued that the execution of the sale deed dat e d 26.08.1925 is admitted, and i t is not disputed th a t the property was purchased j o intly by Mata Bux and Devi D a yal to the extent of h alf share each.

¶66

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶67

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 10 -

¶68

It w as contended that the sole de fe nce of the appellants was that the property purch a sed in 1925 was adjacent to t h e disputed property, but no co g ent evidence was l e d to support this plea. On the c ontrary, the site plan Ex.P3, w h ich was attached w ith the sale deed, clearly ment i ons the boundaries, and the s a me substantially ta l ly with the boundaries reflecte d in Ex.P1, notwithstanding m i nor variations attrib u table to passage of time. 28. Le a rned counsel submitted that no evidence of partition between M ata Bux and Devi Dayal was ever produced by the defendants, and therefore the learned Trial Court committed an error in ass u ming partition on its own. It w as argued that the L ower Appellate Court correctl y held that the Trial Court could not invent a case o f partition in the absence of plea d ings or proof. 29. With regard to dimensions, it was argued that minor discrepancie s in measurements, especially in old properties p u rchased nearly a century ago, are natural and do not defeat substantive rights. T he emphasis, according to lear n ed counsel, must b e on identity through boundarie s , which stands established from the admissions of defendants’ witnesses themse l ves. It was pointed out that the defendants adm i tted that on the eastern side of t he disputed property was the h o use of Ram Lal, on the western side was a thorou g hfare, on the northern side was the house of Soha n Lal and on the southern side w as the house of Mata Bux, w h ich fully corroborat e s the plaintiff’s site plan. 30. Le a rned counsel further submitt e d that the construction raised by Faqir Chand in 1955–56 does not extinguish th e plaintiff’s title, as mere inactio n or silence does no t amount to abandonment of o w nership. It was contended that the

¶69

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶70

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 11 -

¶71

defendants deri v ed title with full knowledge of the joint nature of the property and therefore canno t claim any equity on the basis of construction or lapse of time. 31. It w as lastly submitted that the lea r ned Lower Appellate Court rig h tly held the plainti f f to be a co-sharer to the exte n t of half share, and the decree for partition is perf e ctly executable through appoin t ment of a Local Commissioner. No perversity or s u bstantial question of law aris e s warranting interference by t his Court.

¶72

Findings of this Court

¶73

Af t er giving my anxious conside r ation to the judgments passed by both the courts b elow, the pleadings of the part i es, the documentary as well as o ral evidence on re c ord and the rival submissions advanced, I am of the consid e red view that the judgment and decree passed b y the learned Trial Court call for interference ne i ther on facts nor in law and deserve to be upheld, though for reasons which r e quire to be clarified and elabor a ted. 33. At the outset, it is to be noticed t h at the entire controversy bet w een the parties revo l ves around the identity of the s u it property, and not merely aro u nd the question as t o whether Mata Bux and Devi D ayal were joint owners or whe t her any partition had taken place inter se between t h em. In a suit for partition, the f irst and foremost o b ligation of the plaintiff is to est a blish, with certainty and precis i on, that the proper t y sought to be partitioned is t h e very same property in whic h he claims co-owne r ship. This foundational require m ent cannot be diluted. 34. Th e plaintiff has relied primarily u p on the sale deed dated 26.08.1 9 25 (Ex.P2) and th e site plan Ex.P1 prepared by him to contend that the prop e rty shown by letter s ABCD is the same property w h ich was purchased jointly by M ata TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶74

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 12 -

¶75

Baksh and Dev i Dayal. However, a careful scru t iny of the record reveals that w h ile the sale deed E x.P2 and the site plan attach e d thereto (Ex.P3) contain spe c ific measurements a nd dimensions, the plaintiff’s si t e plan Ex.P1 does not mention any dimensions at all. The absence of dimen s ions in Ex.P1 assumes critical significance, a s it renders the site plan inc a pable of precise identificatio n or comparison wi t h the title document. This om i ssion is not a minor defect, b u t a serious lacuna w hich goes to the root of the plai n tiff’s claim. 35. It i s true that boundaries of a prop e rty may change with the passag e of time, owing to subsequent constructions, tra n sfers and urban development . A house which w a s once adjacent to an open co u rtyard may later abut a constru c ted building, and names of adjoining owners may also change. Howe v er, measurements a nd dimensions do not ordinaril y change with time. The length and width of a plot, unless lawfully altered, remain constant. Therefore, where the t itle document cont a ins measurements, but the site plan relied upon by the plainti f f is completely sile n t on dimensions, the court is left without any reliable mean s to correlate the two. In the present case, this very absence of dimensions in Ex.P1 is fatal to the plai n tiff’s case.

¶76

Th e evidence of the plaintiff hims e lf further weakens his case. In his oral testimony, he admitted that construction o v er the disputed portion was ra i sed by Faqir Chand in the year 1955–56 and that h e did not raise any objection at t hat time. He also a d mitted that the said constructio n continued to remain in posses s ion of Faqir Cha n d and, thereafter, his successors. These admissions ass u me significance w h en examined in the light of the plaintiff’s failure to produce a site plan with mea s urements. If the plaintiff was indeed a co-sharer in the spe c ific TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶77

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 13 -

¶78

portion on wh i ch construction was raised, a clear demarcation supported by dimensions wo u ld have been the minimum re q uirement. The long silence of the plaintiff, coupl e d with the existence of a define d construction since 1955–56, c a sts a serious doubt o n his present claim.

¶79

Th e defendants, on the other ha n d, produced the sale deed d a ted 11.04.1985 (E x .D1) along with site plans Ex.D2 and Ex.D3. These docume n ts, when read wit h the oral evidence of the defe n ce witnesses, present a consis t ent picture regardi n g the location, dimensions an d physical features of the disp u ted house. Importa n tly, the defence site plans correlate with the construction raise d on the spot and w i th the historical fact that the c o nstruction dates back to 1955 – 56. The Trial Cour t was justified in placing relia n ce on this consistency, especi a lly when contraste d with the plaintiff’s site plan w h ich lacks any measurements. 38. Th e learned Trial Court did com m it an error in observing that the property purch a sed in 1925 had been partiti o ned between Mata Bux and D evi Dayal, as ther e was no pleading or evidenc e of such partition. However, t his erroneous obse r vation does not, by itself, vitiat e the ultimate conclusion reache d by the Trial Cour t . It is well settled that a jud g ment cannot be set aside me r ely because one o f the reasons given is incorre c t, if the conclusion is other w ise sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record. Once the assumptio n of partition is kept aside, the plaintiff still had t o independently establish that the property shown in Ex.P1 is the same property purchased in 1925 and that he is a co-sharer in tha t very property. On this crucial a spect, the plaintiff failed. 39. Th e Lower Appellate Court rightl y noticed that there was no evid e nce of partition, b u t in the process, it fell into a more serious error. It treated the

¶80

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶81

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 14 -

¶82

correction of t h e Trial Court’s reasoning on p artition as sufficient to decree the suit, without co n clusively addressing the core i s sue of identity of the property. T he Lower Appella t e Court glossed over the fact that Ex.P1 does not disclose any measurements, a nd proceeded on the assumpti o n that identity could be establis h ed solely on the basis of boundaries. This approac h overlooks the settled principle t hat where identity i s disputed, measurements prov i de the most reliable and objec t ive test, particularl y when the title document itself c ontains dimensions. 40. Th e Lower Appellate Court also a t tached undue weight to bounda r ies while underpla y ing the importance of measure m ents. As already noted, bounda r ies are susceptible to change, but dimensions are n ot. Where the plaintiff’s own site plan is silent o n dimensions, greater evidentia r y value necessarily attaches to the documentary a n d oral evidence produced by th e defendants, which is consis t ent with the dimen s ions of the constructed property on the spot. 41. M o reover, the Lower Appellate C o urt did not adequately deal with the plaintiff’s admi s sions regarding long-standing c onstruction and possession. T h ese admissions, rea d in conjunction with the absen c e of dimensions in Ex.P1, crea t e a serious dent i n the plaintiff’s claim that th e disputed portion was joint and unpartitioned. T he Trial Court rightly appreciat e d these aspects while assessing the overall credibility of the plaintiff’s case. 42. Th u s, even after correcting the T rial Court’s erroneous assump t ion regarding parti t ion, the conclusion remains in e vitable that the plaintiff faile d to discharge the i n itial burden of proof cast upon h im. The dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court, therefore, stands on firm footing, t hough the reasoning requires t o be refined by exc l uding the incorrect assumption of partition and by resting the

¶83

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶84

RSA-362-1994 (O&M) - 15 -

¶85

decision squar e ly on the failure of the plaint i ff to establish identity of the suit property throu g h reliable measurements and d imensions, which are comple t ely absent in Ex.P1 .

¶86

Conclusion

¶87

Fo r all these reasons, this Court holds that the learned Trial C o urt rightly dismiss e d the suit, and the Lower App e llate Court erred in reversing t hat well-founded j u dgment

¶88

Co n sequently, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and d ecree dated 17.12.1993 passe d by the learned Lower Appellate Court are hereb y set aside, while the judgment a nd decree dated 03.04.1991 pa s sed by the learned T rial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff are restored, with the modification th a t the observation and finding r ecorded by the learned Trial C o urt regarding an al l eged prior partition between M a ta Bux and Devi Dayal are hel d to be unsustainabl e and are accordingly set aside.

¶89

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶90

December 19, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o .

¶91

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.22 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mohan Lal and Ors. v. Ruldu Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Mohan Lal and Ors. v. Ruldu Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harinder Singh Vs Jasbir Singh and Ors.

Des Raj Vs Jasbir Singh and Ors.

Mange Ram Vs Jasbir Singh and Ors.

Jitender Bhatia Vs Bimla Ahuja and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra Vs Sukhbir Singh

Nanhi and Ors. Vs Maha Singh and Ors.