Dismissed

Ramji Lal v. Bhagwani Devi and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Feb 2012RSA/821/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal concerning a partition suit over joint Hindu family property, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that following the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, daughters were coparceners and inherited the deceased father's share in equal proportions with sons, rejecting the plaintiff's claim.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; the underlying suit and appeal were affirmed.

Ramji Lal Vs Bhagwani Devi and Others — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

RSA No.821 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

RSA No.821 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: February 27, 2012

Ramji Lal

.......Appellant

Versus

Smt.Bhagwani Devi and others

¶10

.......Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr.Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

<><><>

¶14

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

¶15

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

¶16

Briefly stated, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants by pleadings that he (plaintiff) and proforma defendants No.4 and 5 were the owners in possession of half share in the property total measuring 155 K 13 M, as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, being the coparceners of Joint Hindu Family property situated at village Shahpur, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari as per jama bandi for the year 2004-05. It was pleaded that the suit property had been recorded in the name of plaintiff's father, namely, Mangtu son of Chitru being the karta of the Joint Hindu Family. It was further pleaded that his father Mangtu had expired on 16.3.2006 and thereafter, defendants No.1 to 3, in collusion with the Halqa Patwari, had got a mutation of inheritance of deceased Mangtu,

¶17

RSA No.821 of 2011

¶18

¶19

vide mutation No.593 dated 6.9.2007. The plaintiff pleaded that he, along with proforma defendants No.4 and 5 and Mangtu were the coparceners of Joint Hindu Family property and accordingly, Mangtu had 1/4^th share and the remaining 3/4^th share belonged to plaintiff and proforma defendants No.4 and 5. As such, the plaintiff averred that defendants No.1 to 3 were entitled to a share out of the 1/4^th share of Mangtu and mutation No.593 regarding the inheritance from deceased Mangtu was null and void. It was pleaded that on the basis of mutation No.593, defendants No.1 to 3 were claiming themselves to be owners in possession of half share of the suit property and were threatening to alienate the same and accordingly, the suit had been instituted.

¶20

Upon notice, the defendants filed a written statement stating that upon the death of their father i.e. Mangtu, all the defendants along with plaintiff had a legal right to inherit the suit property in equal shares. As such, it was stated that upon mutation No.593 dated 6.9.2007, all the defendants along with plaintiff had become absolute owners in the suit property, and defendants No.1 to 3 had already executed a release deed bearing No.1172 dated 10.9.2007 of their respective shares in favour of proforma defendants No.4 and 5 and mutation thereof bearing No.597 dated 11.10.2007 had also been sanctioned incorporating such relinquishment.

¶21

The parties went to trial on the following issues framed by the trial Court:

¶22

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of the relief claimed in the plaint and is entitled to get a mutation sanctioned in his favour to the effect that he is owner in possession of 1/3 share of property of Mangtu and that

¶23

RSA No.821 of 2011

¶24

¶25

defendants No.1 to 3 have shared 1/8?OPP

¶26

Whether the mutation No.593 dated 6.9.2007 is wrong, illegal, null and void?OPP

¶27

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of injunction as prayed for?OPP

¶28

Whether defendants No.1 to 3 are absolute owners by virtue of mutation?OPD

¶29

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

¶30

Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for non-fixation of proper court fee?OPD

¶31

Whether defendants No.1 to 5 are legal heirs of Mangtu?OPD

¶32

Whether the suit property has been transferred in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 vide release deed No.1172 dated 10.9.2007?OPD

¶33

Relief.

¶34

The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and even

¶35

the civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant has met the same fate vide impugned judgment dated 8.4.2010 thereby affirming the judgment of the trial Court.

¶36

Mr.Jai Vir Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has been

¶37

heard.

¶38

There is no dispute as regards a few relevant facts. Mangtu was the absolute owner in possession over the suit land and he died intestate on 16.3.2006. It was the plaintiff's own case set up that the suit property is Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property. After the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the year 2005 and in terms of Section 6 thereof, the daughters of deceased Mangtu i.e. defendants No.1 to 3 also

¶39

RSA No.821 of 2011

¶40

¶41

were coparceners along with plaintiff and proforma defendants No.4 and 5. In the light of the amendment in Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the daughters have also been made coparceners along with sons and as such, all the legal heirs of deceased Mangtu i.e. daughters and the sons, have rightly inherited his immovable property in equal shares, vide mutation No.593 dated 6.9.2007. The plaintiff legally and rightfully has got share to the extent of 1/6^th share in the suit land. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly conceded such position in law.

¶42

For the reasons stated above, the present second appeal is dismissed as it does not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law.

¶43

The present second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶44

Appeal dismissed.

¶45

FEBRUARY 27, 2012 SRM

¶46

( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE

¶47

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

Ramji Lal v. Bhagwani Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramji Lal v. Bhagwani Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bachittar Singh and Ors. Vs Babu Singh

Jassa Singh Vs Charan Singh etc.

Anand Parkash Singla Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

LIC of India Vs Vishwa Mittar Sondhi

LIC of India Vs Vishwa Mittar Sondhi

Harchand Singh Vs Jagdish Pal Singh and Ors.