Appeal against first appellate court order upholding plaintiff's suit for declaration of ownership regarding shops. Court upheld the lower court's finding that no valid family settlement or transfer occurred.
Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to the respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
���������������������������������������� ��������������
��������������������������
Date of decision: 12th November, 2014
Bhupinder Singh and others
� Appellants
Versus
Harpreet Singh
� Respondent
����� �����!�"�������������������������������
Present: Mr. Sukhraj S. Brar, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the respondent.
����������������#���
After having suffered conflicting opinions of the two courts below whereby through judgment and decree dated 27.04.2010 suit of the plaintiff Harpreet Singh stood dismissed whereas the first appellate court of learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa through impugned judgment and decree dated 30.04.2011 reversed these findings allowing the appeal of the plaintiff and decreeing his suit and thus it is by way of challenge to this the instant appeal has been preferred.
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.03.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
2
�������������������������
Heard at length Mr. Sukhraj S. Brar, Advocate for the defendant/appellants, Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate representing the plaintiff/respondent and perused the records of the case.
It is admitted as well as established case of the parties that Paramjit Singh, Pargat Singh and Bhupinder Singh, all sons of Gurdit Singh, purchased shops No.7 and 8 duly depicted in the head note of the plaint through registered sale deed dated 12.05.1971. It is also not in any manner challenged that Paramjit Singh died on 21.08.1993 whereas Pargat Singh died on 04.11.1974. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant Bhupinder Singh and others fraudulently got transferred these lands in the name of Gurdit Singh, father of the three owner brothers and on the basis of a registered Will dated 19.03.1998 Bhupinder Singh, his widow and sons have sought to own these shops by virtue of bequeath from Gurdit Singh who had died on 12.04.1998 and thus, challenged the same and sought declaration to that effect.
Stand of the defendants in unison is that it was by virtue of a family settlement in the month of March 1990 that Gurdit Singh came to be the owner and by virtue of a registered Will dated 19.03.1998 these shops were inherited by them from Gurdit Singh and thus, sought dismissal of the suit.
The Trial Court framed the following issues:
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.03.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
3
�������������������������
Plaintiff examined himself as PW1, Joginder Mohan Deed Writer as PW2, Mangat Ram as PW3, Nanihal Singh as PW4, Gugan Ram as PW5 and proved documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and Ex.PX and Ex.PY. On the other hand, defendant No.1 Bhupinder Singh stepped into the witness box as DW1 and placed reliance on documents Mark A to J.
This court on the contentions of the parties, framed following substantial question of law:
“Whether findings of the learned first appellate Court were wrong and incorrect appreciation of the evidence and if there was any valid and legitimate
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.03.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
4
�������������������������
devolution of interest from the original owner and subsequent to the claimants, if so to what effect?”
Learned counsel for the appellant at the very onset of his arguments does not in any manner impugn that since it is the defendants who have staked their claim of Gurdit Singh having become owner by way of family settlement and therefore, in terms of section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, burden was upon the defendants to have established it so.
There is not even an iota of evidence led on the record by the defendants how or in what manner such a family settlement took place and even date of this alleged settlement has not been mentioned. Merely some receipts of Local Civic Authorities have been placed on record, does not confer upon Gurdit Singh any right, title or interest over these properties. More so, since Pargat Singh one of the co<owners had admittedly died on 04.11.1974 how the subsequent family settlement could be entered into in the year March 1990 and more so, it is only after devolution of his estate upon his heirs such a situation could have cropped up and who have neither been examined in support of the defendants. Even otherwise, under the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 either such a transfer could come about through a registered document if there is a sale in terms of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or else there could be a writing signed by the necessary parties to it and which has never been brought before the Court. Mere house tax receipts are no
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.03.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
5
�������������������������
document of title and it has been rightly observed by the first appellate Court to that effect. Thus, by that analogy the purpose of Will alleged to have executed on 19.03.1998 by Gurdit Singh deceased does not hold any sway qua this property in question and he has never deemed to have become owner of these shops in question at any point of time.
In the light of these discussions finding no fault with the impugned findings the same needs to be upheld and the instant appeal being wholly devoid of any merit stands dismissed with costs.
������������������� ������
��$%&'%(���#������ ���
RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.03.16 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there was a valid family settlement transferring ownership to the defendant.
Whether the evidence regarding the alleged transfer and will was legally sufficient.
Whether the findings of the first appellate court were correct.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bhupinder Singh and others
Harpreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
