This is the plaintiff's second appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit for declaration of ownership as a joint heir and permanent injunction. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove the land was ancestral, as evidenced by a valid registered will and prior litigation findings.
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.
RSA No.4086 of 2012 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4086 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:21.05.2014
Gurdev Singh
....Appellant
Versus
Surinder Kaur and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:- Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellant.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in joint possession of the suit land on the basis of natural succession of Hansa son of Jagiria, resident of village Garhi Ajit Singh, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr, with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the Courts below.
As per the averments made in the suit, one Hansa son of Jagiria died intestate on 20.02.2002 leaving behind appellant and defendants No.1 to 3. Since the suit land was ancestral, appellant as entitled to 1/4th share of the suit land on the basis of natural succession. It was further averred that appellant was in cultivating
Kadian Savita 2014.05.26 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.4086 of 2012 (O&M)
2
possession but the defendants were threatening to interfere and dispossess the plaintiff from the same. Hence the necessity arose to file the suit.
The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 3 raising various preliminary objections. It was admitted that Hansa, the father of defendants No.1, 2 and plaintiff and grandfather of defendant No.3 expired on 20.2.2002 and was owner of the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint. However, it was denied that the said land was ancestral joint Hindu coparcenary land in the hands of deceased Hansa. It was further averred that deceased Hansa executed a registered Will dated 12.9.1996 in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 and one Parjit, son of the plaintiff in equal shares each. Thus, on the basis of the said Will, the defendants were owners and in possession of said land to the extent of 3/4th share and the plaintiff has got no right, title or interest with the suit property.
Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding that appellant has failed to prove that the suit land was joint Hindu family coparcenary property. No revenue record was produced to show that Hansa had inherited this property from his father, father's father, father's father's father. Moreover, there was earlier litigation between the parties. Appellant had filed a suit against Hansa and others, wherein it was specifically observed that suit property was not joint Hindu Family Property vide judgment passed by Sh. Rajiv Kalra, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nawanshahr
Kadian Savita 2014.05.26 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.4086 of 2012 (O&M)
3
dated 20.3.2002. The Courts below further found that the due execution of the Will, which is registered, has also been proved and in fact, no suspicious circumstance was pointed out on behalf of the appellant except that two pens were used in writing date and name of the witnesses. Even before this Court, no worthwhile argument has been raised to controvert the aforesaid findings as recorded by the Courts below.
Not only this, admittedly, son of the appellant has been given 1/4th share in the suit land vide registered Will which is under challenge by the plaintiff-appellant.
In view of the aforesaid, no interference is warranted as no substantial questions of law, as raised, arise in this appeal.
Dismissed.
May 21, 2014 savita
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
Kadian Savita 2014.05.26 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to a share of the suit land based on natural succession as ancestral property when a registered will in favor of the respondents is proven.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding the validity of the will and the property's nature.
Gurdev Singh
Surinder Kaur
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
