Dismissed

Ruggi and Anr. v. Chamela etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Oct 2010RSA/2157/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge affirmed the Lower Appellate Court's judgment in a property suit. The court held that since the deceased predecessor died intestate prior to partition, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act applied, entitling daughters to 1/54th shares each in the ancestral property.

What did the court decide?

The appeal as well as the cross-objections stand dismissed. No substantial question of law arises.

Ruggi and Anr. Vs Chamela etc. — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

RSA No.2157 of 2006(O & M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.2157 of 2006(O & M) Date of Decision:25.10.2010

Ruggi & anr.

....appellants

Versus

Smt.Chamela & Ors.

.....respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present: Mr.J.S.Hooda,Advocate for the appellants

¶15

Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for respondents No.1,2 and 4

¶16

¶17

RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.

¶18

The appellants, who were defendants No.1 and 2 before the trial Court, have approached this Court by way of this appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 4 was decreed.

¶19

Respondents No.1 to 4 brought the suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that they are joint owners in possession of the property in dispute to the extent of 4/9^th share and the sale deed dated 18.04.1995 executed by respondents No.3 to 7(defendants No.3 to 7) in favour of the appellants was illegal and not binding upon their rights to the extent of their share. A decree for injunction was also prayed restraining

¶20

RSA No.2157 of 2006(O & M)

¶21

¶22

the appellants from raising any construction over the suit property.

¶23

It was averred in the suit property that the property in dispute which is within the Abadi Deh of the village was ancestral property of the respondents/plaintiffs which was inherited by them after the death of Shibha(their father). The suit was contested by the appellants raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that they were owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed dated 18.04.1995 being bona fide purchasers with valuable consideration.

¶24

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit. However, on an appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 4, the judgment of the trial Court was set aside by the Lower Appellate Court holding that the suit property was ancestral and the plaintiff-respondents were entitled to a share of 1/54^th share each as Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act was applicable in the present case.

¶25

Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, defendants No.1 and 2 have filed the instant appeal. Plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 4 have also filed cross-objections against the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court claiming that the respondents were entitled to 1/9^th share each and the Lower Appellate Court has wrongly held that the property in dispute was coparcenary property.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the present case, the matter in controversy revolves around the fact as to whether the plot in dispute is ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants No.3 to 7 which was inherited by them after the death of their predecessor-ininterest, Shibha, or not.

¶27

Admittedly, the plot in dispute was inherited by the plaintiffs and defendants No.3 to 7 from their forefathers and thus after the death of

¶28

¶29

RSA No.2157 of 2006(O & M)

¶30

Shibha, plaintiffs along with others were joint owners in possession to the extent of their share. There is no evidence on record to prove that plaintiffs have sold their share to the defendants/appellants. Thus, no fault can be found with the findings of the Lower Appellate Court holding that plaintiffs/respondents were joint owners of the suit property,along with other co-sharers i.e.defendants No.3 to 7.

¶31

Now, the only question remains as to the determination of share of parties in the suit property. The Lower Appellate Court applied Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and determined the share of the plaintiff-respondents to the extent of 1/54^th share each. However, learned counsel for the respondents has challenged the aforesaid determination of share in favour of respondents No.1 to 4 on the ground that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act was not applicable in the present case and the share of the plaintiff-respondents should have been determined on the basis of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and the respondents were entitled to 1/9^th share, instead of 1/54^th share, each.

¶32

The arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondents/cross-objectors is without any merit.

¶33

Admittedly, Shibha, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs and defendants No.3 to 7 had expired prior to execution of impugned sale deed and thus, property in question, which was ancestral, was not partitioned during the life time of Shibha. In this view of the matter, plaintiffs being daughters of Shibha, since deceased, have sufficient interest in the suit property. In the instant case as noticed above, nature of property in dispute is ancestral one and Shibha died intestate, thus, Section 6 of the Act which deals with devolution of coparcenary interest of a male Hindu dying after the Act, in an undivided Mitaksra coparcenary was rightly applied.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this

¶35

RSA No.2157 of 2006(O & M)

¶36

¶37

appeal.

¶38

No substantial question of law arises.

¶39

Both the appeal as well as cross-objections stand

¶40

dismissed.

¶41

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶42

25.10.2010 neenu

Ruggi and Anr. v. Chamela etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruggi and Anr. v. Chamela etc.

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

Pritam Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Divn. Bhatinda Vs Rabinder Kumar Singla and Ors.

Pana Thola Hindwan Kharkhoda Vs Municipal Committee Kharkhoda and Ors.

Harjit Singh Vs Rupinder Kaur

Parminder Kaur and Anr. Vs Gurdev Kaur

M/S Pioneer Profin Ltd. Vs Residency Greens Residents Welfare Association