Dismissed¶69

Attar Singh etc. v. Jagan Nath etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2025RSA/940/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

locus standi; maintainability of regular second appeal; agreement to sell does not confer title; executory contract; suit for specific performance adjourned sine die; stranger to family; legal heirs inter se; devolution of Banshi Dhar's 1/3rd share; Shanti Devi 1/9th; Jagan Nath and Chokh Raj 4/9th each; mutation of inheritance; joint Hindu family / coparcenary property; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; aggrieved person; Additional District Judge Rewari; Punjab and Haryana High Court; RSA-940-2000 dismissed; Attar Singh; Shiv Dayal; Jagan Nath; Chokh Raj; Nafe Singh; Mandeep Pannu.

What did the court decide?

The Regular Second Appeal is not maintainable: the appellants, who have no locus standi (claiming only under an agreement to sell from Shanti Devi rather than as her legal representatives), are dismissed. ¶69

Attar Singh etc. Vs Jagan Nath etc. — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the Regular Second Appeal filed by Attar Singh and Shiv Dayal - claimants under an alleged agreement to sell executed by Shanti Devi and not her legal heirs - is maintainable, i.e., whether they have locus standi to challenge the Lower Appellate Court's decree on the devolution of Banshi Dhar's share.

¶58

Court's answer

¶69

Ratio / Principle

An agreement to sell does not confer any title, right or interest in immovable property; it is only an executory contract entitling the holder at best to sue for specific performance - a suit the appellants have already filed (adjourned sine die) and wherein their remedy lies.

¶61

Key takeaways

The dispute regarding succession and inheritance of property can only be contested by the legal heirs inter se, and not by strangers claiming through an agreement to sell.ratio¶63
A stranger to the family claiming only on the basis of an agreement to sell cannot challenge the distribution of shares of coparcenary or joint family property amongst the heirs; reliance is placed on the settled principle that an appeal at the instance of a person who is not an aggrieved party is not maintainable.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RSA-940-2000 (O&M) | High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh | Mandeep Pannu, J. | Decided 05.09.2025 (reserved 01.09.2025). Regular Second Appeal by Attar Singh and Shiv Dayal (defendant Nos. 2 and 3), claiming as purchasers under an alleged agreement to sell executed by Shanti Devi (original defendant No.1, since deceased) regarding her asserted 1/3rd share, challenging the Addl. District Judge, Rewari decree of 29.11.1999 which reduced Shanti's share from 1/3rd to 1/9th (plaintiff Jagan Nath and Chokh Raj 4/9th each; mutation of inheritance to be corrected). HELD: appeal dismissed as not maintainable for want of locus standi - (i) an agreement to sell confers no title, right or interest in immovable property, being only an executory contract whose remedy is a suit for specific performance, which the appellants have already filed (adjourned sine die); (ii) succession/inheritance disputes are contestable only inter se the legal heirs, not by strangers claiming through an agreement to sell; a stranger to the family cannot challenge the distribution of coparcenary/joint family shares among heirs, and an appeal by a non-aggrieved person is not maintainable; (iii) only Shanti Devi or her legal representatives were aggrieved by the share correction; (iv) consequently the Court declined to examine the merits of the appellants' contentions on joint Hindu family/coparcenary status and sanctioning of the mutation. Appellants left free to pursue the pending specific performance suit; pending applications disposed of. Statute referenced: Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (trial-court attestation of mutation of inheritance). No precedents cited by the Court.

¶1

RSA-940-2000 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

RSA-940-2000 (O&M) Reserved on:-01.09.2025 Date of Decision : 05.09.2025

¶6

Attar Singh and Another

¶7

....Appellants

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Jagan Nath an d Others

¶10

....Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶12

Present: M r . N.C.Kinra, Mr. Harsh Kinra a n d M s . Apoorva Kinra, Advocates for the appellants.

¶13

M r . Pritam Singh Saini and Mr. D e epak Singh Saini, Advocates Fo r respondents No.1 and 2. Se r vice of respondents No.3 to 5 a n d 7 to 9, dispensed with.

¶14

M r . Prashant Singh Chauhan, Adv o cate for respondent No.6. (A p peared through video conferen c ing)

¶15

-.-

¶16

MANDEEP PANNU,J.

¶17

Th e present Regular Second Appe a l has been filed by Attar Singh and Shiv Dayal, ap p ellants/defendant Nos. 2 and 3 , against respondent No.1/plai n tiff and respondent No.2/defendant No.4, and res p ondent No. 3 to 9/legal heir s of defendant No. 1, Shanti, challenging the judg m ent and decree dated 29.11.1 9 99 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari.

¶18

Brief Facts

¶19

Br i ef facts, as pleaded by the plai n tiff - Jagannath, are that he fil e d a civil suit again s t defendant No. 1, Shanti, an d defendant No. 2, Chokh Raj, for declaration and permanent injunction. During t h e pendency of the suit, the pre s ent appellants, Att a r Singh and Shiv Dayal, minor sons of Jhabar, were impleade d as TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

RSA-940-2000 (O&M) - 2 -

¶21

defendant Nos. 2 and 3, thereby shifting the st a tus of defendant No. 2, Chokh R aj, as defendant N o . 4.

¶22

It w as alleged by the plaintiff t h at there was joint Hindu fa m ily property belon g ing to the plaintiff, his father B ansi Dhar, and original defen d ant No. 2, Chokh R aj. Bansi Dhar owned 81 kanals 12 marlas of land, which was j o int Hindu family p roperty of the aforesaid three persons. As Banshi Dhar was the father of the pa r ties to the suit, he had given t h e property falling to his share i n a family settleme n t to the plaintiff and original d e fendant No.2-Chokh Raj, and since then, the plaint i ff and original defendant No.2 had been owners in possessio n of the suit propert y .

¶23

It i s further alleged that Banshi D h ar died on 29.08.1977, and at the time of his deat h , he was not the owner of the d isputed property on account of the family settlem e nt. In case the family settlem e nt was not established, even t h en deceased Bans h i Dhar was owner of only 1/3r d share in the disputed propert y , as the remaining 2 /3rd share already belonged to the plaintiff and original defen d ant No.2. After the d eath of Banshi Dhar, defendan t No.1, being a family member, w as entitled to only 1/3rd of the 1/3rd share of Ban s hi Dhar, and thus, defendant N o . 1 Shanti was enti t led to get only 1/9th share in th e suit property. 5. It w as further the case of the plain t iff that Defendant No. 1 had n e ver been in posses s ion of any portion of the suit property. It was the plaintiff a nd original defend a nt No.2 who were in peacefu l possession and had also bec o me owners of the 1 /9th share of defendant No.1 b y way of adverse possession. T he defendants had no right, title or interest in th e suit property, but in the reve n ue record, defenda n t No.1 had been wrongly rec o rded as owner of 1/3rd share. T he plaintiff, feelin g aggrieved, had requested defe n dant No.1 multiple times to a d mit the rightful clai m of the plaintiff and defendant N o. 2, but in vain. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

RSA-940-2000 (O&M)

¶26

It w as further pleaded that after t h e institution of the suit, the ne w ly added defenda n ts, Attar Singh and Shiv D a yal, moved an application to be impleaded as p a rties, which was allowed. Whe n the amended plaint was filed, the newly added d e fendants were arrayed as defen d ant Nos. 2 and 3, whereas orig i nal defendant No. 2 was arrayed as defendant No. 4 . Later on, original defendant N o.1 expired and wa s represented through her legal h eirs.

¶27

Upon notice, defendant No. 4 did not put in appearance, whe r eas newly added defendants No. 2 and 3 filed their separate written statement, and the legal heirs of d e fendant No.1 filed their separat e written statement.

¶28

It w as alleged by the legal heirs o f defendant No. 1 in their wri t ten statement that the suit was not maintainabl e . They further took prelimi n ary objections rega r ding cause of action and the s u it being barred. On merits, it w as alleged that the relationship between the parties was admitted, but deceased Ba n shi Dhar was own e r in possession of the entire pr o perty and no family settlement, as alleged, ever t o ok place. It was pleaded that a fter the death of Banshi Dhar, the property was ri g htly succeeded by all his legal heirs, and original defendant N o.1 rightly succeed e d to 1/3rd share therein. Acco r dingly, it was prayed that the suit deserved to be d ismissed.

¶29

Th e newly added defendant Nos. 2 and 3, in their separate wri t ten statement, also raised preliminary objections. T hey further alleged that muta t ion was rightly sa n ctioned in favour of the plaint i ff, defendant No.1, and defen d ant No. 4 after the d eath of Banshi Dhar in the pre s ence of the plaintiff. It was fur t her alleged that de f endant No.1 had been rightly entered as owner in possessio n of 1/3rd share of B anshi Dhar. It was also plead e d that there had never been a j o int Hindu family a nd no family settlement ever took place. The properties of the deceased were inherited according to natural s uccession, and original defen d ant TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

RSA-940-2000 (O&M) - 4 -

¶31

No.1-Shanti, b e ing owner of 1/3rd share, exec u ted an agreement to sell in fa v our of the newly ad d ed defendants Nos. 2 and 3. I n the end, it was prayed that the suit deserved dismi s sal.

¶32

Th e plaintiff filed replication to t h e written statements, controver t ing the allegations c ontained therein.

¶33

Fr o m the pleadings of the parties, t h e following issues were frame d :

¶34

Whether the plaintiff is enti t led to the relief of declaration and pe r manent injunction as prayed for? OPP

¶35

Whether the suit is not main t ainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is est o pped by his act and conduct f r om fili n g the present suit? OPD

¶36

Relief.

¶37

A n Additional Issue No. 3A was also framed, which reads as unde r : “3 A . Whether the suit of the plaint if f is time barred one? OPD”

¶38

Bo t h the parties led their evidence.

¶39

Findings of the trial Court

¶40

Th e reafter, the learned trial Cour t heard the counsel for the pa r ties and, after goin g through the oral and docum e ntary evidence and the argum e nts advanced by b o th the parties, decided Issue N o. 1 against the plaintiff an d in favour of def e ndant No.1 by holding that the plaintiff was not entitle d to declaration and permanent injunction as claimed, as the mutation of inheritanc e of deceased Bans h i Dhar was rightly attested und e r the Hindu Succession Act, 1 9 56. The plea of ow n ership by way of adverse posse s sion was also rightly rejected.

¶41

Iss u es Nos. 2, 3, and 3A were take n up together and decided in fa v our of the plaintiff and against the defendants, be i ng not pressed by the defend a nts. Accordingly, th e suit of the plaintiff was dismis s ed. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

- 5 -

¶43

RSA-940-2000 (O&M)

¶44

Findings of the Lower Appellate Court

¶45

Fe e ling aggrieved by the afore s aid judgment and decree d a ted 13.09.1996 pas s ed by the learned trial Court, a n appeal was filed before the lear n ed Lower Appella t e Court of the learned Additi o nal District Judge, Rewari, by the plaintiff Jagan Nath. The learned Lower Ap p ellate Court observed that Ba n shi Dhar, father of t he parties, was admittedly own e r in possession of the disputed land and that he, alo n g with his sons and daughter, constituted a joint Hindu famil y . It was further o b served that the property in d ispute was coparcenary prop e rty amongst them. T he learned Court also observe d that in the present case, there w as no satisfactory evidence which could establ i sh separation of the joint Hi n du family, and the r efore, the presumption of joint H indu family was stronger in fa v our of deceased Ba n shi Dhar and his sons, namely the plaintiff and original defen d ant No.2.

¶46

Th e learned Lower Appellate Co u rt further observed that the m ain controversy bet w een the parties was regarding t he 1/3rd share of Banshi Dhar and its devolution. I t was held that Banshi Dhar had 1/3rd share initially, while plai n tiff Jagan Nath ha d 1/3rd share and original def e ndant No.4 also had 1/3rd sh a re. Defendant No.1-Shanti, had no share prior to t h e death of Banshi Dhar. After the death of Banshi Dhar, defendant No.1-Shanti, g o t 1/9th share out of the 1/3rd s h are of Banshi Dhar , whereas the plaintiff – Jagan N ath and defendant No. 2 – Ch o kh Raj got 4/9th s h are each in the disputed propert y . 18. Ac c ordingly, the learned Lower A ppellate Court partly decreed the suit of the plain t iff and held that the mutation o f inheritance attested in the nam e of defendant No.1 - Shanti to the tune of 1/3rd sh a re be corrected in accordance w ith the shares as observed above. The appeal was, t h us, partly allowed.

¶47

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

RSA-940-2000 (O&M) - 6 -

¶49

Fe e ling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, the present a p peal has been filed by defen d ant Nos.2 and 3, n a mely, Attar Singh and Shiv Da y al. They claim their interest in the suit property on the basis of an agreement to sell allegedly executed by Shanti D evi (since deceased ) regarding her 1/3rd share in th e suit property. 20. Upon notice, respondents No.1 an d 2- Jagan Nath and Chokh Raj and respondent No. 6 -Nafe Singh, chose to contest t h e present Regular Second Appeal. Service of resp o ndents No.3 to 5 and 7 to 9, dis p ensed with.

¶50

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants

¶51

It w as argued by learned counsel f or the appellants/defendant No s . 2 and 3 that the l e arned Lower Appellate Court h a d wrongly held the suit propert y to be joint Hindu f amily and coparcenary property, whereas no such evidence was led to prove the s a me. No excerpt prepared by t h e revenue officials had come on record. During h is lifetime, Banshi Dhar had been dealing with his 1/3rd shar e in the suit propert y by mortgaging his land. Exhi b it P2 is the mutation of inherit a nce of Banshi Dha r after his death, which shows that the plaintiff, defendant N o .1Shanti (since d eceased), and original defenda n t No. 2 Chokh Raj inherited the property of Banshi Dhar in equal shares, i.e., 1/ 3 rd share each. 22. O n the basis of her 1/3rd share, S h anti had entered into an agree m ent to sell with the appellants. Her 1/3rd share is r e flected in the Jamabandi (Ex. D 1) for the year 19 8 1–82. Subsequent Jamabandis a lso reflect the same position. A fter the agreement t o sell, the father of the appellan t s, Jhabar, was shown in posses s ion in the Khasra G irdawaris (Ex.D2 and D5) an d Girdawari (Ex.D4), as posses s ion had also been d elivered by Shanti Devi to the vendees. It was further contended that the parties were not living together, as th e sons of Banshi Dhar were pa y ing Chulla tax, sho w ing that they were living separ a tely. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

RSA-940-2000 (O&M) - 7 -

¶53

It w as argued that the impugne d judgment of the learned Lo w er Appellate Cou r t was illegal, perverse, and w i thout any basis. The mutatio n of inheritance on the basis of natural successio n had been rightly sanctioned and recorded in th e revenue record. The judgme n t of the learned trial Court w as correct, legal, a nd based on due appreciation of evidence and law. Hence, the appeal filed by t he appellants deserve to be acc e pted.

¶54

Submissions on behalf of the respondents

¶55

O n the other hand, learned cou n sel for respondents No. 1 an d 2 (plaintiff and L R No. 6 of Shanti) argued t h at the only contention raised w as regarding the m aintainability of the appeal fil e d by the appellants, who were not the legal heirs of Banshi Dhar, whose proper t y was in dispute. They allege d to have acquired i n terest and right in the propert y on the basis of one agreemen t to sell alleged to h ave been executed by Shanti r e garding her 1/3rd share in the suit property. How e ver, it was argued that an agr e ement to sell does not confer any title.

¶56

It w as further pointed out that the appellants had already filed a suit for specific per f ormance, which had been adjo u rned sine die . The appellants c o uld claim their righ t s in that suit for specific perfor m ance, but they could not challe n ge the devolution of the share of Banshi Dha r upon his legal heirs. Since the appellants had n o locus standi to file the pre s ent appeal, it was argued that the same was liable to be dismissed on this sole gro u nd.

¶57

Findings

¶58

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for t he parties and after considering the record, this Co u rt is of the view that the pres e nt appeal is not maintainable. T he admitted positi o n is that the impugned judgme n t and decree of the learned Lo w er Appellate Cour t partly decreed the suit of the p laintiff Jagan Nath by reducing the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

RSA-940-2000 (O&M) - 8 -

¶60

share of Shanti Devi from 1/3rd to 1/9th, holdi n g that the remaining shares w o uld go to the plaint i ff and original defendant No. 2 . Thus, it was only Shanti Devi, or after her demis e her legal representatives, who c ould be said to be aggrieved by the said judgment a nd decree. The present appe a l, however, has not been filed by Shanti or her l e gal representatives. Instead, it has been filed by Attar Singh and Shiv Dayal, wh o claim themselves to be purcha s ers on the basis of an agreeme n t to sell said to hav e been executed by Shanti Devi.

¶61

Th i s Court finds merit in the o bjection raised on behalf of the respondents regarding locus standi. An agreem e nt to sell does not confer any t i tle, right, or interes t in the immovable property. It i s only an executory contract, w h ich at best entitles the agreement holder to seek en f orcement of the contract by wa y of a suit for specific performance. The appellants themselves admit that they h ave already filed s u ch a suit, which has been adj o urned sine die. Their remedy lies therein and not in challenging the devolution o f the share of Banshi Dhar upon his

¶62

legal heirs.

¶63

It i s well settled in law that the dispute regarding succession and inheritance of property can only be contested b y the legal heirs inter se and no t by strangers claim i ng through an agreement to se l l. The appellants cannot be sai d to have stepped i n to the shoes of Shanti Devi m e rely by virtue of an agreemen t to sell. They have no independent right to assail t h e correctness of the shares allo t ted by the learned L ower Appellate Court, as the d i spute is purely inter se between the legal heirs of B a nshi Dhar. 29. Th e contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the property was n o t joint Hindu family/coparcen a ry property, and that mutation w as rightly sanctioned, is of no avail to them, sinc e they lack locus standi to ques t ion

¶64

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶65

RSA-940-2000 (O&M) - 9 -

¶66

the findings. O n ce it is held that they are not a g grieved persons, this Court ca n not enter into the m e rits of their arguments.

¶67

Re l iance is placed on the settle d principle that an appeal at the instance of a p e rson who is not an aggrieved p a rty is not maintainable. A stra n ger to the family, c l aiming only on the basis of an agreement to sell, cannot challe n ge the distribution of shares of coparcenary or join t family property amongst the h e irs. The appellants are at liberty to pursue th e ir independent suit for spe c ific performance, b u t they cannot maintain the pres e nt appeal.

¶68

Conclusion

¶69

Ac c ordingly, this Court holds that t he present Regular Second Appeal, filed by the ap p ellants, the persons who have n o locus standi, is not maintain a ble and is, hereby, d ismissed.

¶70

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

¶71

September 05, 2 025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o .

¶72

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.09 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Attar Singh etc. v. Jagan Nath etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Attar Singh etc. v. Jagan Nath etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukhtiar Kaur Vs Sadhu Singh

Muktiar Kaur Vs Sadhu Singh

Mukhtiar Kaur Vs Balbir Singh

Nachhattar Kaur and Others Vs Harcharan Singh and Others

Kitabo Devi and Others Vs Shanti Devi and Others

Ishwar Singh Vs Sanjay