Dismissed

Amarjit Kaur & Ors. v. Bhajan Kaur @ Harbhajan Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Aug 2014RSA/1911/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patiala-Haryana High Court dismissed this second appeal regarding succession. The court held that the mother of the deceased, despite having sold the disputed property to the son during his lifetime, remained a Class I heir entitled to an equal share of the estate left by the deceased.

What did the court decide?

The substantial questions of law raised were dismissed with no substantive order to the parties.

Amarjit Kaur & Ors. Vs Bhajan Kaur @… — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

�� 

¶2

�� Date of decision: 1^st August, 2014

¶3

Amarjit Kaur and others

¶4

� Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bhajan Kaur @ Harbhajan Kaur

¶7

� Respondent

¶8

�� !�"��#��#��

¶9

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Mr. K.S. Kang, Advocate for the appellants.

¶13

��#��#��$��

¶14

This is defendants’ second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2012 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bathinda and the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2014 of the District Judge, Bathinda, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff9respondent was decreed and the appeal filed on behalf of the defendant9appellants against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the first appellate Court.

¶15

Plaintiff9respondent filed the instant suit seeking declaration to the effect that she is co9owner and entitled to joint possession of the suit property to the extent of 25% share and also

¶16

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.08.07 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶17

¶18

��

¶19

entitled to share in the FDRs in the name of her deceased son, namely, Jasbir Singh, after his death on 14.07.2008.

¶20

The appellants, who are the widow of deceased Jasbir Singh and minor children, filed written statement rebutting the claim of the plaintiff9respondent, wherein it was highlighted that the house in question was sold by the plaintiff9respondent herself to Jasbir Singh for a valuable consideration vide sale deed dated 10.02.1992 and therefore, she was not entitled to any share in the house in question. However, it was not disputed that the plaintiff9respondent was the mother of Jasbir Singh (since deceased).

¶21

After framing of the issues, the parties led evidence in support of their respective case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff9respondent holding her to be entitled to receive 1/4^th share in the suit property as well as FDRs left behind by deceased Jasbir Singh, observing that the plaintiff9respondent being mother of the deceased was entitled to inherit the estate of her son along with the appellants.

¶22

The appeal filed on behalf of the defendant9appellants against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. While dismissing the appeal, the lower appellate Court observed as under:

¶23

�� !��!��"��#��

¶24

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.08.07 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶25

¶26

��

¶27

��"��$��%��&��!�� !��'��()#�� �'�� !��!�� !��!�� !�� !�� +�� !�� "��#�� "��$��% ��+� �� ,�� +�� !��-�� +�� #./^�� -�� !�� 0��1(2�� 3�� "��# �� *��#./^�� �� 1(2��4��

¶28

Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:

¶29

(a) Whether the plaintiff who had sold the entire suit property to her son for a valuable consideration could be entitled to claim a share upon the death of her son in a property already sold by her?

¶30

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.08.07 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶31

¶32

��

¶33

(b) Whether the deposits made in the bank from the self earning of the deceased wherein he had particularly appointed his wife/widow as a nominee could be claimed by any other legal heir?

¶34

¶35

(d) Whether the conclusions drawn by the Ld. Courts below are perverse and contrary to the factual position of law?

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

¶37

It could not be disputed before this Court that the plaintiff9 respondent is mother of Jasbir Singh (since deceased), who was husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 and 3. It could further not be disputed that the plaintiff9respondent, being mother of the deceased, was Class I heir along with the appellants and also entitled to the estate left behind by deceased Jasbir Singh in equal share with the appellants. Simply because the house in dispute was earlier sold by the plaintiff9respondent to deceased Jasbir Singh will not disentitle her to inherit the estate left by her son Jasbir Singh. It is settled principle of law that all the legal heirs are equally entitled to the estate left behind by the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute the aforesaid settled principle of law.

¶38

No other argument has been raised.

¶39

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.08.07 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶40

¶41

��

¶42

In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the

¶43

substantial questions of law, as raised, do not arise at all.

Dismissed.

��#��#�� 

�%&%'(��$��

��

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2014.08.07 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

Amarjit Kaur & Ors. v. Bhajan Kaur @ Harbhajan Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjit Kaur & Ors. v. Bhajan Kaur @ Harbhajan Kaur

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

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Ravinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Jatin Mehta and Ors.

Mohammad Ali Vs Gram Panchayat & Ors.

(O&M)Gurdial Singh and Ors. Vs Seema Kiran and Ors.

Harinder Singh Maller Vs Baljinder and Ors.

Chaman Lal & Ors. Vs Kailash & Ors.

Bhinder Singh Vs Jagpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh