Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 16 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – M/s Astra Lighting Ltd., Lalru (through its Chairman); Respondents – Sanjay Kumar and others.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Second appeal against a decree dated 04‑12‑2018 (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dera Bassi) which declared the plaintiff’s title, possession and permanent injunction, and a subsequent decree dated 17‑12‑2025 (Additional District Judge, Mohali) dismissing the appellant’s first appeal.
  • Background: The plaintiff claimed purchase of land measuring 4 Bighas 2 Biswas 17 Biswasi in Village Kouli Majra, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, via Sale Deed No. 2354 dated 20‑06‑2008 executed by Krishan Singh (co‑sharer). The land was subject to partition proceedings because it was jointly held by co‑sharers Ajmat Singh and Krishan Singh, each entitled to a 4/15 share (32 Bighas 18 Biswas) of the total 123 Bighas 7 Biswas.
  • Disputed Transactions:
  • Ajmat Singh sold land exceeding his share:
  • Vasika No. 1108 dated 11‑06‑1990 to Sham Lal (defendant‑5).
  • Vasika No. 4055 dated 09‑12‑1997 to the appellant‑defendant No. 2.
  • Additional sales by Ajmat Singh included parcels to Desa Singh, Nachattar Kaur, Bimla Devi, and Krishan Singh, totaling 37 Bighas 18 Biswas before 1990.
  • Issues Framed: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and permanent injunction, locus standi, limitation, non‑joinder of parties, cause of action, and other procedural matters.
  • Findings of Fact: Revenue records and Jamabandi (1988‑89) confirmed Ajmat Singh’s share was 4/15 and that he sold land beyond this share, including land belonging to Krishan Singh, without authority. Consequently, the 1990 and 1997 sale deeds were declared null and void.
  • Legal Reasoning:
  • The court held that Krishan Singh possessed a valid 4/15 share; his 2008 sale deed is therefore valid.
  • Non‑joinder of Krishan Singh was not fatal because the suit sought declaration of his sale deed, not a claim against him.
  • The appellant‑defendant could not be deemed a bona‑fide purchaser as the revenue records clearly showed Ajmat Singh lacked title.
  • The limitation defence was rejected; the void deeds could be challenged within three years of knowledge, which the plaintiff only acquired during partition proceedings.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
  • The lower courts' findings that the 1990 and 1997 sale deeds are void and that the 20‑06‑2008 deed by Krishan Singh is valid are affirmed.
  • No further relief is granted to the appellant; any pending applications are disposed of.

Topics: Land Ownership, Sale Deed Validity