Disposed

Sulakhan Singh and Ors. v. Ajit Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Aug 2016RSA/4378/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in a succession suit for declaration of property ownership. Modifying the lower appellate court's finding which dismissed the claim due to non-impleadment of some heirs, this court held that other legal heirs should also be entitled to the declaration along with the appellants.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of on the modified view that all surviving legal heirs of the deceased owner are entitled to the declaration.

Sulakhan Singh and Ors. Vs Ajit Kaur and… — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

RSA No.4378 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.4378 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:05.08.2016

¶5

Sulakhan Singh and others

¶6

... Appellants

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Smt. Ajit Kaur and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶13

C.M.No.13210-C of 2009

¶14

For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 329 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

¶15

C.M. stands disposed of.

¶16

C.M.No.13212-C of 2009

¶17

For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by an

¶18

affidavit, delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶19

C.M. stands disposed of.

¶20

RSA No.4378 of 2009 (O&M)

¶21

Appellant-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the findings rendered in paragraph 24 and 25 by the Lower Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court in a suit for declaration to the effect that appellant-plaintiffs

¶22

Savita 2016.08.16 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶23

RSA No.4378 of 2009 (O&M) {2}

¶24

are owner in joint possession of the property to the extent of 1/5^th share being legal heirs of their deceased father Swaran Singh son of Bua Ditta.

¶25

Mr. Vipin Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiffs submits that the aforementioned suit was decreed by the trial Court which was assailed by the defendants before the Lower Appellate Court. The appeal has been dismissed qua declaration by rendering the findings in paragraph 24 and 25 of the Lower Appellate Court which read thus:-

¶26

“24. In the present case, the plaintiffs are claiming the ownership of the suit property originally owned by Bua Ditta. It was the duty of the plaintiffs to plead all the necessary facts required for proper decision of the case but the plaintiffs had not impleaded all the legal heirs of Bua Ditta. From the pleadings in the plaint, it is transpired that Bua Ditta was survived by four sons namely, Swaran Singh, Hazara Singh, Dalip Singh and Hansa Singh and two daughters namely Shanti and Dhanti. Names of some of these persons are also mentioned in the copy of jamabandi Ex.P17. Defendant Ajit Kaur is the widow of defendant No.2, Dalbir Singh and defendant No.3 Kashmir Singh are sons of Hazara Singh. Defendant No.4 Surat Singh is the son of Shanti and plaintiffs are sons of Swaran Singh. Pedigree table as emerged from the contents of the plaint and jamabandi Ex.P.17 is drawn as under:-

¶27

Savita 2016.08.16 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶28

RSA No.4378 of 2009 (O&M)

¶29

{3}

¶30

Bua Ditta

¶31

Swaran Singh (son)	Hazara Singh (son)	Dalip Singh (son)	Ajit Kaur widow	Hansa Singh (son)
	Dalbir	Kashmir		Surat
	Singh	Singh		Singh
Sulakhan	Sarup	Jasbir	Ajit Singh	Amrik
Singh	Singh	Singh		Singh

¶32

25. Legal heirs of Hansa Singh and Dhanti are not impleaded as parties to the suit. All the legal heirs of other sons and daughters of Bua Ditta were not disclosed. It is not disclosed that parties to the suit are the only legal heirs of Bua Ditta and no body else is the legal heir of Bua Ditta. In the absence of disclosing and impleading all necessary parties to suit, declaration cannot be given in favour of the respondent/plaintiffs that they are owners in possession of the suit land. Hence, the findings of the learned court to this effect are erroneous and are set aside.”

¶33

No doubt, all the LRs of other sons and daughters of Bua Ditta have not been impleaded as party as other LRs are having enuring benefit of the declaration except for plaintiffs.

¶34

I am of the view that all the surviving LRs of Buta Ditta and their predecessor in interest would be entitled to the declaration in the manner and mode, the trial Court has granted, instead only plaintiffs.

¶35

Savita 2016.08.16 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶36

RSA No.4378 of 2009 (O&M)

¶37

{4}

¶38

With the aforementioned modification, the appeal stands

¶39

disposed of.

¶40

	(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
August 05, 2016 savita
Wheather speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶41

Savita 2016.08.16 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Sulakhan Singh and Ors. v. Ajit Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulakhan Singh and Ors. v. Ajit Kaur and Ors.

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

Santa Singh and Ors. Vs Harbans Singh

Kulwaran Singh Vs Amarjit Singh and Ors.

Jagdeep Kumar Vs Jaskaran Singh and Ors.

Chandu Mali & Anr. Vs Sudesh Manga & Ors.

Surinder Singh Vs Sanjay Agnihotri etc.

Maman Ram & Ors. Vs Ramesh & Ors.