Dismissed

Balbir Kaur v. Hardeep Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Feb 2012RSA/4994/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's second appeal in a suit for partition and injunction. The plaintiff claimed inheritance shares but was forced out by the defendant relying on a registered will and alleged settlement. The court held the will valid and distinguished a precedent requiring registration of compromise deeds, finding no infirmity in the lower courts' dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; impugned judgments and decrees of courts below upheld.

Balbir Kaur Vs Hardeep Kaur and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

RSA No.4994 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

RSA No.4994 of 2010 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: February 29, 2012

Balbir Kaur

.......Appellant

Versus

Hardeep Kaur and others

¶10

.......Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶12

Present: Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

<><><>

¶14

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

¶15

The plaintiff-appellant Balbir Kaur is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

¶16

A suit for exclusive separate possession was filed by the plaintiffs (Balbir Kaur and Manjit Kaur) in respect of the suit property marked by letters 'BCEF' as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint and they also prayed for a relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing them and also restraining the defendants from raising any kind of construction upon such suit property. It was pleaded that Chuhar Singh was the owner in possession of the suit property along with other agricultural property in village Bassi , Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. Upon his death, the suit property as also the other agricultural land was inherited by his son, namely, Jit

¶17

RSA No.4994 of 2010 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

Singh, defendant No.1 and his daughters i.e. both the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 in equal shares. The mutation of the agricultural land of Chuhar Singh had already been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 in equal shares vide mutation No.1604 as recorded in the jama bandi for the year 1997-98. It was pleaded that the suit property was joint between the parties and has not yet been partitioned. Defendant No.2, who is the sister of the plaintiffs, was stated to be a clever lady and she was threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly and was wanting to alienate the same and hence, the suit.

¶20

The suit was contested and a joint written statement was filed by defendants No.1 and 2 taking a stand that the suit property is under the sole and exclusive ownership of defendant No.1. A preliminary objection was taken that the relief for permanent injunction was not even maintainable in law as the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property or any part thereof. It was further stated that the father of the parties, namely, Chuhar Singh had executed a valid Will dated 6.8.1998 which was registered on 18.8.1998 and in terms thereof, his entire property including the suit property had been bequeathed in favour of defendant No.1. However, it was only out of love and affection for his sisters that defendant No.1 had got the mutation of the agricultural lands attested in his favour as also in favour of his sisters in equal shares. The defendants also set up a plea that an oral settlement which was later on reduced in writing vide document dated 16.3.1999 had been executed by the plaintiffs as also defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 as regards the

¶21

RSA No.4994 of 2010 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

suit property and in terms of such settlement, all the debts which were due, were now to be paid and discharged by defendant No.1.

¶24

Having heard respective counsel and upon due appreciation of evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Even the civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellants has been dismissed by the District Judge, Rupnagar vide impugned judgment dated 13.4.2010.

¶25

I have heard Mr.Vijay Lath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length.

¶26

Learned counsel has raised a two-fold submission. It has been argued that the Courts below have placed reliance upon document, Exhibit D1, which is in the nature of a compromise settlement to non-suit the plaintiffs and such document was compulsorily required to be registered in terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act. Learned counsel would contend that in the absence of registration of the same, such document could not have been read into evidence and as such, could not have been set up as a document of title. Learned counsel has further argued that the agricultural property of late Chuhar Singh i.e. father of the parties having devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendants in equal shares by way of inheritance, it would amount to abandonment of the Will and, in fact, the defendants are estopped from claiming any rights pertaining to the suit property on the basis of such Will dated 6.8.1998.

¶27

The Will has been duly proved on record as Exhibit D2. Even the original of the Will had duly been proved in the trial

¶28

RSA No.4994 of 2010 (O&M)

¶29

¶30

Court and the attesting witnesses to such Will were duly examined and both such witnesses have testified towards the due execution of the Will in their presence and at the instance of Chuhar Singh. The Will, Exhibit D2, accordingly, would have to be held to be duly executed and duly proved in terms of the statutory provisions of the Succession Act as also the Evidence Act. That apart, the Will, Exhibit D2, was a registered document. The mere fact that such Will was not produced at the time of sanctioning of mutation as regards the agricultural property of Chuhar Singh in favour of all the parties cannot be taken as a ground for abandonment of such Will. The due execution of the Will cannot be ignored in the eyes of law insofar as the suit property is concerned.

¶31

Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Karanjit Kaur v. Sukhjinder Kaur, 1999(2) PLR 377 in furtherance of his submission that a compromise-deed in relation to immovable property having value of more than `100/- would require compulsory registration in terms of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act.

¶32

Such judicial precedent would have no applicability to the facts of the present case. Defendant No.1 would clearly have a pre-existing right upon the plot in question in view of the Will dated 6.8.1998, Exhibit D2, which stands duly proved on record. As such, even such submission raised by the learned counsel cannot be accepted.

¶33

For the reasons recorded above, I find no patent infirmity or material irregularity in the impugned judgments and

¶34

RSA No.4994 of 2010 (O&M)

¶35

¶36

decrees passed by the Courts below. The findings recorded do not suffer from any perversity.

¶37

The second appeal does not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law.

¶38

The present second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. Appeal dismissed.

¶39

February 29, 2012

¶40

( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE

¶41

SRM

¶42

Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No

Balbir Kaur v. Hardeep Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Kaur v. Hardeep Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanwaljit Kaur Vs Inderjit Singh and Anr.

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

LIC of India Vs Vishwa Mittar Sondhi

Banwari Lal Mohan Vs Rulia Ram Mohan

Mahender Singh Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Ram Rati & Ors. Vs Ramesh L.R. of Mangat Ram