Dismissed

Prem Chand & Ors. v. Tarun & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2018RSA/6819/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by defendants against the decree in a suit for declaration and injunction. The Court held that a registered Relinquishment Deed stands unless challenged by a counter-claim and rejected the Will on evidentiary grounds, finding no merit in the submission regarding Bhondedar status.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the judgment and decree of the Courts below were upheld.

Prem Chand & Ors. Vs Tarun & Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.6819 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

RSA No.6819 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.01.05.2018

¶5

Prem Chand and others ......Appellants Vs Tarun and others .....Respondents

¶6

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶7

Present: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the appellants.

¶8

-.-

¶9

AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)

¶10

The appellants-defendants are aggrieved of the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction by the respondents-plaintiffs has been decreed by the trial Court and upheld by the lower Appellate Court.

¶11

The respondents-plaintiffs instituted the suit aforementioned on the ground that Uday Ram was having half share out of total land measuring 52 kanals 13 marlas i.e. 26 kanals 6 marlas, which was purchased by Uday Ram from the Rehabilitation Department as per the sale certificate dated 30.04.1975. In lieu thereof, an amount of `9000/- was paid on 31.01.1975. On demise of Uday Ram, his son Hari Ram inherited the property. Hari Ram was grand-father of the plaintiff whereas the defendants are sons of Hari Ram. During his life time, he executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 28.07.2008 in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. Since the defendants were asserting right in the property, declaration and permanent injunction was sought with consequential relief of injunction qua forcible dispossession.

¶12

The defendants contested the suit on all points, even denied the

¶13

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.09 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

RSA No.6819 of 2016 (O&M) -2-

¶15

relationship of the plaintiff with Hari Ram and propounded a Will dated 01.05.2008.

¶16

The trial Court on the basis of the evidence brought on record decreed the suit and rejected the Will of the appellants-defendants. The finding of the trial Court was upheld in appeal by the lower Appellate Court.

¶17

Mr. Sanjay Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-defendants submitted that the suit land in the revenue record was reflected as Bhondedar which as per the revenue record could not have been transferred by way of Relinquishment Deed. Though the copy of the Will had not been proved on record but in the absence of any document, the estate of Hari Ram was required to be devolved by way of natural succession. All these factors have been ignored by the Courts below, thus, there is illegality and perversity.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Verma. The Relinquishment Deed was a registered document, which had not been challenged by setting up a counter claim. The suit was filed on 12.11.2008 whereas the Relinquishment Deed was of 28.07.2008 and Hari Ram died on 07.08.2008. Neither witness of the Will appeared nor the original Will had seen light of the day. Any registered document cannot be set aside or ignored in the absence of challenge to the same. This view of mine is derived from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of MP and others AIR 2016 SC 4995 .

¶19

As an upshot of my finding, there is no illegality and perversity

¶20

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.09 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA No.6819 of 2016 (O&M) -3-

¶22

in the judgments and decrees rendered by both the Courts, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed.

¶23

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 01, 2018 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No

¶24

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.09 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Prem Chand & Ors. v. Tarun & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chand & Ors. v. Tarun & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bagicha Singh Vs Jasbir Kaur and Ors.

Sudhir Jain Vs Mohinder Ram

Amar Singh Vs Gopi Ram

Poonam Vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh through Its Registrar General

Nitesh Verma @ Nitin Verma Vs State of Haryana

Suresh Kumar and Anr. Vs Raj Pal and Ors.