Dismissed

Bakshish Singh and Ors. v. Malook Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Sept 2009CR/4962/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an interim injunction restraining disposals of property. The Court rejected the argument that failure to prove the ancestor's death date negated the prima facie case of inheritance established in a neighboring village. No opinion on merits was intended.

What did the court decide?

Application for restraining disposal of property dismissed without prejudice to merits.

Bakshish Singh and Ors. Vs Malook Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 4962 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM No. 20633-CII of 2009 and Civil Revision No. 4962 of 2009 Date of decision: 01.09.2009

¶5

Bakshish Singh @ Shamsher Singh and others

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Malook Singh and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

¶11

Present: - Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)

¶14

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.3.2009, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands allowed and the petitioners herein have been restrained from disposing of 1/4^th share of the property, while giving liberty to dispose of 3/4^th share.

¶15

The case set up by the plaintiff/respondents was, that they were successors-in-interest of Smt. Nihal Kaur and, therefore, entitled to 1/4^th share in the property. The inheritance was claimed from Sh. Jawala Singh, who had land at two places. The land in one of the villages was mutated in favour of Smt. Nihal Kaur, giving her 1/4^th share by way of inheritance, whereas land in dispute was mutated in favour of the

¶16

-2-

¶17

Civil Revision No. 4962 of 2009 (O&M)

¶18

petitioners herein.

¶19

The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit in which an application was moved for restraining the petitioners herein from disposing of 1/4^th share of the property.

¶20

The petitioners took up a plea that Smt. Nihal Kaur was not entitled to any share in the property, as Sh. Jawala Singh died prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. The petitioners failed to mention the date of death of Jawala Singh. Mutation of succession was admittedly sanctioned after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act.

¶21

The learned Courts below found, that the plaintiff/respondents had prima facie a case, as Smt. Nihal Kaur was admittely given 1/4^th share in the property of Sh. Jawala Singh, in one of the villages. The learned Courts below, therefore, in view of the prima facie case having been proved, came to the conclusion that in the event of disposal of the land, the plaintiff/respondents were likely to suffer irreparable loss. The balance of convenience was also found in favour of the plaintiff/respondents.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends, that it was for the plaintiffs to prove the date of death of Jawala Singh, to claim inheritance. Having been failed to do so, there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. The order passed by the learned Courts below, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

¶23

This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners is totally mis-conceived. Once, it is not in dispute that in one of the villages, 1/4^th share was inherited by Smt. Nihal Kaur, without any objection from the

¶24

Civil Revision No. 4962 of 2009 (O&M)

¶25

-3-

¶26

petitioners, it could not be said that plaintiff/respondents did not have a prima facie case to claim share in the property of Sh. Jawala Singh in other village being successors of Smt. Nihal Kaur.

¶27

No merit.

¶28

Dismissed.

¶29

However, nothing stated above, be taken as expression of

¶30

opinion on merits of the case.

¶31

(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge

¶32

September 01, 2009 R.S.

Bakshish Singh and Ors. v. Malook Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bakshish Singh and Ors. v. Malook Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdev Dass Vs Surinder Pal and Ors.

Randhir Singh Vs Sandhura Singh and Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tara Chand Yadav and Anr.

Hari Singh Vs Amarjit Singh and Ors.

Bhola Ram Vs Nand Lal and Ors.

(O&M) Sat Narayan Vs Gram Panchayat, Vill. Nangal Kalan & Anr.