Ved Parkash Vs Inderjeet and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ved Parkash Vs Inderjeet and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether Ved Parkash (plaintiff No. 1) had valid title to the suit property on the basis of the Will dated 11.05.2006 executed by Smt. Sunder Devi, in view of the decree dated 30.05.1989 conferring ownership on Subhash Chander. +1 more

Court's answer

In the presence of the judgment and decree with regard to the suit property conferring ownership rights upon Subhash Chander, Smt. Sunder Devi was left with no interest in the suit property.

Ratio / Principle

The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are in consonance with the evidence on record.

Key takeaways

No substantial question(s) of law arise(s) in the appeal.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular second appeal (RSA-2673-2024 (O&M)) by Ved Parkash against Inderjeet and others before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal, oral judgment), decided 07.08.2025. The appeal challenged the judgment dated 04.07.2024 of the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, which had dismissed the appellant's first appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2018 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, dismissing the suit for declaration of title founded on a Will dated 11.05.2006 allegedly executed by Smt. Sunder Devi. The respondents-defendants contended that Subhash Chander (father of defendant No. 1 Inderjeet and husband of defendant No. 2 Savitri Devi) was owner of the houses as per decree dated 30.05.1989, so Sunder Devi ceased to own the suit property. The appellant's earlier separate suit challenging the decree dated 30.05.1989 had been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty vide order dated 23.08.2014 (Exhibit P-12), and that judgment and decree was not challenged. Holding that, in the presence of the decree conferring ownership upon Subhash Chander, Smt. Sunder Devi was left with no interest, that the findings of the courts below were in consonance with the evidence on record, and that no substantial question of law arose, the court dismissed the appeal; the delay of 23 days in filing was condoned (CM-10976-C-2024) and pending civil miscellaneous applications stood disposed of.

(111)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-2673-2024 (O&M) Date of decision:- 07.08.2025

Ved Parkash

Versus

Inderjeet and others

...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present:Mr. S.S. Mor, Advocate, for the appellant.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

CM-10976-C-2024

For the reasons mentioned therein, the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

RSA-2673-2024

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgement dated 04.07.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar dismissing the appeal preferred by him and upholding the judgement and decree dated 10.07.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide which the Suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title of the appellant/plaintiff No. 1 (Ved Parkash) in suit property on the basis of a Will dated 11.05.2006 executed by Smt. Sunder Devi was dismissed.

It has been contested by respondents-defendants that Subhash Chander, father of defendant No. 1 (Inderjeet) and husband of defendant No. 2 (Savitri Devi) was the owner of the houses as per decree dated 30.05.1989 and Sunder Devi had transferred the houses to

AMODH SHARMA 2025.08.07 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

RSA-2673-2024 (O&M)

-2-

Subhash Chander declaring him owner in possession of the same vide decree dated 30.05.1989. So, at the time of her death, Sunder Devi was no longer owner of the suit property in question.

After elaborate trial, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar dismissed the suit by recording a finding that Sunder Devi was not the owner of the properties at the time of her death and as such, the same would not pass to her heirs on the basis of the Will propounded by the appellant and the findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) were upheld in appeal. 4. The decree dated 30.05.1989 was previously challenged by the present appellant by a separate suit which was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh vide order dated 23.08.2014. Certified copy of the order has been placed on record as Exhibit P-12 in the suit. The appellant has not challenged that judgement and decree. So, in the presence of judgement and decree with regard to the suit property conferring ownership rights upon Subhash Chander, Smt. Sunder Devi was left with no interest and the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are in consonance with the evidence on record.

No substantial question(s) of law arise(s).

The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed.

7 In view of the above, pending Civil Miscellaneous application(s) stand(s) disposed of.

(VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE

07.08.2025

Amodh Sharma

Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether reportable	Yes/No

AMODH SHARMA 2025.08.07 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement