Dismissed

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Jaspal Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Nov 2018RSA/1786/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging a suit decree regarding property ownership shares. The court held that the lower courts correctly found the property ancestral, invalidating the claim that a bequest to grandsons constituted a valid testamentary disposition without legal necessity.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed, leaving the concurrent findings of fact and the suit decree intact.

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. Vs Jaspal Singh… — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.1786 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

RSA No.1786 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.29.11.2018

¶5

Sukhdev Singh and others ....Appellants Vs Jaspal Singh and others ...Respondents

¶6

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶7

Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the appellants.

¶8

-.-

¶9

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶10

C.M.No.4828-C of 2016

¶11

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 9 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned.

¶12

Application is allowed.

¶13

C.M. No.4829-C of 2016

¶14

The application for impleadment of legal representatives of deceased-appellant No.5, Joginder Singh is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the legal representatives are ordered to be brought on record for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal.

¶15

RSA No.1786 of 2016

¶16

The present regular second appeal is directed at the instance of the appellant-defendants challenging the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for declaration conferring

¶17

him ownership to the extent of 1/7^th share and also injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 7 from alienating the suit property.

¶18

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.07 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA No.1786 of 2016 (O&M) -2-

¶20

The suit was based on averment that Santa Singh was owner of land. He had two sons namely Mangal and Shiv Dev. Mangal was unmarried and died issueless. Shiv Dev had one son Chanan Singh. Roor Singh was only son of Chanan Singh. In view of the demise of Mangal Singh, his share and the share of Chanan Singh devolved upon Roor Singh. A mutation in this regard was also sanctioned. Roor Singh had five sons, one daughter and wife. Jaspal Singh, Joginder Singh, Binder Singh, Nirmal Singh, Ranjit Singh are sons, Amrik Kaur daughter and Gian Kaur wife. Jaspal Singh is the plaintiff and defendants are sons of Joginder Singh and Ranjit Singh. It was alleged that property at the hands of Roor Singh was ancestral but in view of testamentary document dated 27.02.2001 bequeathed in favour of the appellants-defendants being grand sons. The Courts below did not find favour with the defence of the defendants as noticed above.

¶21

Mr. Anil Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-defendants submitted that claim of the plaintiff at the best could have been confined to 1/14^th share. He could not claim to the share of Mangal Singh as it could not be treated as ancestral property. There was no impediment for Roor Singh to bequeath his 1/8^th share by way of testamentary document, though the Will pertained to the entire land.

¶22

I am afraid aforementioned argument of Mr. Chawla is not sustainable, as the nature and character of the property even on mutation of the share of Mangal Singh remained same. It could not be an acquisition by self. By the time suit was filed, Roor Singh

¶23

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.07 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

-3-

¶25

RSA No.1786 of 2016 (O&M)

¶26

died. His share was equally divided amongst all the legal heirs. Without any legal necessity, he could not have willed away to the grand sons i.e. sons of Joginder Singh and Ranjit Singh, thus, claim of 1/14^th share as propounded in this Court is wholly devoid of merit.

¶27

There is no force in the argument with regard to bequeathing of 1/8^th share of Roor Singh as he did not claim ownership of entire property. There would been some substance in the submission, had the intention reflected in the Will was on account of impression that Roor Singh was owner of the entire property without having character of ancestral, thus, concurrent finding of fact decreeing the suit cannot be said to be erroneous and suffered from any illegality and perversity. No ground for interference is made out.

¶28

The second appeal is dismissed.

¶29

	(A	MIT RAWAL) JUDGE
November 29,	2018
Pankaj*
	Whether Reasoned/Speaking	Yes
	Whether Reportable	No

¶30

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.07 13:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Jaspal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Jaspal Singh 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

Dhiraj Kumar Vs State of Punjab Thr Collector Ferozepur

Avon Handa Vs State of Punjab Thru. Collector Ferozepur

Rajinder Singh Vs Ranjit Singh

Inderjit Singh Vs Maninder Bir Singh and Anr.

Kela Devi & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Dile Ram Deceased Thro Lrs Jaswant Now Deceased Thru Lrs. Neelam and Ors. Vs Mohinder Singh Deceased Thro Lrs Santosh Rani and Ors.