MANOHAR SINGH & ORS SARJIT SINGH, JAGDEV SINGH vs HARBHAJAN KAUR & ORS — RSA/958/1989

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 02-Jul-2018

CNR: PHHC010283211989

Filing Number

RSA/958/1989

Filing Date

05-May-1989

Registration No

RSA/958/1989

Registration Date

05-May-1989

Judge

Mr. Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal

Coram

Mr. Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal

Bench Type

Single

Category

26 - RSA ( 496 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANOHAR SINGH & ORS SARJIT SINGH, JAGDEV SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HARBHAJAN KAUR & ORS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Amarinder Singh GrewalView PDF

    Case Summary: RSA 958/1989 Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana Judgment Date: May 13, 2026 Decision: The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the lower courts' findings that the suit was barred by limitation and by the doctrine of res judicata. Key Facts: Plaintiffs sought correction of revenue records (jamabandi) for agricultural land in village Nagra, claiming 2/3rd ownership share. They challenged a 1964 compromise decree and 1966 mutation (Mutation No.658) favoring defendant Harbans Singh, and alleged a 1967 sale deed to them was a sham transaction. Court's Reasoning: The court found: (1) the suit was instituted in 1983, over 17 years after the 1966 mutation became effective, making it time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act; (2) the compromise decree of 1964 operates as res judicata and binds the parties; (3) the alleged 1967 sale deed was a sham transaction never acted upon, with possession remaining with defendant No.1; (4) plaintiffs failed to produce cogent evidence supporting their claims and had acknowledged the revenue entries in prior transactions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Jul-2018

    —

    Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon

  4. 08-May-2018

    Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

  5. 05-May-1989

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/958/1989

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RSA 958/1989 Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana Judgment Date: May 13, 2026 Decision: The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the lower courts' findings that the suit was barred by limitation and by the doctrine of res judicata. Key Facts: Plaintiffs sought correction of revenue records (jamabandi) for agricultural land in village Nagra, claiming 2/3rd ownership share. They challenged a 1964 compromise decree and 1966 mutation (Mutation No.658) favoring defendant Harbans Singh, and alleged a 1967 sale deed to them was a sham transaction. Court's Reasoning: The court found: (1) the suit was instituted in 1983, over 17 years after the 1966 mutation became effective, making it time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act; (2) the compromise decree of 1964 operates as res judicata and binds the parties; (3) the alleged 1967 sale deed was a sham transaction never acted upon, with possession remaining with defendant No.1; (4) plaintiffs failed to produce cogent evidence supporting their claims and had acknowledged the revenue entries in prior transactions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case