Dismissed

Gurmit Kaur @ Amarjit Kaur & Ors. v. Mukhtiar Singh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Aug 2013RSA/5119/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In second appeal, the High Court dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The court held the claim was barred by Article 56/58 of the Limitation Act filed ten years after death. Appellant submissions relying on Panchayat records and piecemeal witness extracts were rejected.

What did the court decide?

The suit for declaration and permanent injunction and the appeals were dismissed.

Gurmit Kaur @ Amarjit Kaur & Ors. Vs… — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.11.11 10:24I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

RSA No.5119 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.5119 of 2011 (O&M)

¶5

Gurmeet Kaur and Ors.

¶6

....Appellants

¶7

Mukhtiar Singh and Anr.

¶8

Versus ....Respondents And

¶9

RSA No.5127 of 2011 (O&M)

Gurmeet Kaur

....Appellant

Versus

Mukhtiar Singh and Anr.

¶14

....Respondents

¶15

Date of Decision: 08.08.2013

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶17

Present: Mr. D.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellants.

¶18

JASWANT SINGH, J

¶19

This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA No.5119 of 2011 and RSA No.5127 of 2011 since common questions of law and facts are involved in the same. Facts are being culled out from RSA No.5119 of 2011.

¶20

Plaintiffs-appellants are in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below whereby their suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.2.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barnala and the findings affirmed in appeal vide

¶21

#2#

¶22

RSA No.5119 of 2011 (O&M)

¶23

judgment and decree dated 5.9.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Barnala.

¶24

Plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction of the suit land by alleging that they are owners in possession of the same upto the extent of one half share of the total land measuring 60 kanals 19 marlas being legal heirs of Bikkar Singh @ Bikram Singh. It was further alleged that the Will dated 14.3.1991 executed in favour of defendant No.1-Mukhtiar Singh as well as consequent mutation No.9754 is also illegal, null and void as plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Bikkar Singh @ Bikram Singh and Mukhtiar Singh is the brother of Bikkar Singh @ Bikram Singh. It is further alleged that plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters born from the marriage of plaintiff No.1 and said Bikkar Singh and thus, they are legal heirs after the death of Bikkar Singh on 21.3.1991 and have become as owners in possession of house along with land upto the extent of one half share.

¶25

On the other hand, defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff except that Bikkar Singh and defendant No.1 were owners of the suit land upto the extent of one half share each but it is emphatically denied that Bikkar Singh was known as in the name of Bikram Singh. It is further denied that plaintiff No.1 was married to Bikkar Singh and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters of said Bikkar Singh. In fact, it is pleaded that the plaintiffs have no relations with Bikkar Singh and they have never remained in possession of the house as well as suit land claimed by them. It is also pleaded that defendant

¶26

#3#

¶27

RSA No.5119 of 2011 (O&M)

¶28

No.1 is owner in possession of the land of the share of Bikkar Singh on the basis of registered will dated 14.3.1991.

¶29

Learned trial Court while deciding issue Nos.1 to 4 jointly came to the conclusion in para 22 of its judgment that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Bikkar Singh was known in the name of Bikram Singh and further observed that the plaintiff No.1-Gurmeet Kaur has no relationship with Bikkar Singh and that the plaintiffs have further failed to establish that Gurmeet Kaur was married with Bikkar Singh. Learned trial Court in para 24 of its judgment found the will (Ex.D1) as duly proved and in the will, it is mentioned that said Bikkar Singh was unmarried and issueless. Learned trial Court also came to the conclusion that the will (Ex.D1) was executed on 14.3.1991 and Bikkar Singh died on 21.3.1991 and the mutation on the basis of that was sanctioned in the presence of general public and the present suit is filed on 21.12.2001 i.e after a period of 10 years, which is clearly barred in view of Article 56/58 of the Limitation Act. The findings of learned trial Court were affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the Panchayati agreement at Annexure A.1 wherein Jyoti D/o Bikkar Singh's matrimonial dispute was settled, defendant Mukhtiar Singh has admitted in his cross examination (at A.2) that he had affixed his signatures on Ex.P1 on the saying of Sarpanch. It is thus sought to be contended that defendant Mukhtiar Singh has admitted the marriage of plaintiff Gurmit Kaur with Bikkar Singh and both the courts below

¶31

#4#

¶32

RSA No.5119 of 2011 (O&M)

¶33

have ignored the effect of this document.

¶34

A perusal of Annexure A.1 reveals that this is a Panchayatnama dated 21.9.1997 relates to the matrimonial dispute between Jyoti daughter of Vikkar Singh Ugoke and Boota Singh son of Ram Singh but in the present case, plaintiff No.3 is Surender Kaur @ Jyoti daughter of Bikkar Singh @ Bikram Singh and as such cannot be connected with plaintiff No.3. Moreover, this document was never brought on record nor proved in accordance with the provisions of law and thus the same cannot be looked into at this stage.

¶35

So far as the extract from cross examination of Mukhtiar singh (A.2) is concerned, he has denied the marriage of Surender Kaur with Boota Singh as well as the Panchayati Divorce dated 21.9.1997 and he has also stated that the Sarpanch had got signed from him on blank papers and moreover, the statement of a witness cannot be read in such a way as is being projected by the appellant while extracting the cross examination by putting two lines from here and there as the law is well settled that the statement of a witness is to be read as a whole and not in piecemeal, thus, the plaintiff-appellant cannot take any benefit from Annexure A.2.

¶36

No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal for adjudication under Section 100 CPC.

¶37

Dismissed.

¶38

August 08 ,2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Gurmit Kaur @ Amarjit Kaur & Ors. v. Mukhtiar Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmit Kaur @ Amarjit Kaur & Ors. v. Mukhtiar Singh & Anr.

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

Amarpreet Singh Vs Mohinder Kaur

Bahajn Singh Vs Rajinder Singh

Harpreet Kaur @ Gurnam Kaur Vs Jaswinder Singh

(O&M0 Ganesh Kumar etc. Vs Surinder Kaur

Surinder Vs Braham Parkash and Ors.

Dalbir & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.