This second appeal challenged the validity of a registered gift deed by contending the property was ancestral. The court held appellants failed to discharge the onus to prove ancestral nature or legal necessity, and dismissed the appeal.
The second appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the gift deed.
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.2167 of 2017 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2167 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision.17.12.2018
Nasib Singh and others
....Appellants
Vs
Sandeep and others
...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Yashjot S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellants.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
The appellants-plaintiffs have not been successful in lying challenge to the registered Gift Deed No.1302/1 dated 24.2.1997 executed by Jeet Singh in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 in respect of house bearing No.163, Ward No.2 situated in Mohalla Majri, Shahabad (M), Tehsil Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra.
Mr. Dhaliwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that Jeet Singh was son of Sarda Ram. He had four sons and three daughters. Since the property at his hand was ancestral, he could not have executed the gift deed except for legal necessity. There was no extra love and affection for the donees namely defendant No.1 and 2. Defendants admitted the nature of the property to be ancestral. The suit property vested in the Municipal Committee only in the year 1989 and since it was abadi deh, there was no proof to establish coparcenary but due to implication, the factum of property being ancestral has been established, therefore, there is illegality and perversity.
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.20 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No.2167 of 2017 (O&M) -2-
I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable, as the appellants-plaintiffs have miserably failed to discharge the onus. In the absence of the same, it could not shift upon the defendants to rebut. Even if the suit property was abadi deh, there were rapat roznamchas to establish that Jeet Singh inherited the suit property from his father Sarda Ram. Had that evidence been brought on record, perhaps plaintiffs have some case, being 4th generation in lineage. In the absence of the same, the property in dispute being the self-acquired property, Jeet Singh executed the gift deed.
In view of this matter, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact and law arrived at by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE November 17, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.20 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the gift deed executed by Jeet Singh in respect of ancestral or self-acquired property was legal and valid.
Whether the lower courts committed illegality and perversity in holding the property as self-acquired.
Nasib Singh and others
Sandeep and others
AMIT RAWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
