Tarsem Singh and Others Vs Sohan Singh and Others

The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plain$ffs-appellants assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the learned trial Court and the learned first appellate Court, whereby their suit for declara$on and mandatory injunc$on has been dismissed.

¶12

The plain$ffs ins$tuted a civil suit claiming that they were owners in possession of land measuring 65 Kanals 15 Marlas and sought a declara$on that various muta$ons, sale transac$ons and mortgage created in favour of the defendants were illegal, null and void and not binding upon their rights. The claim of the plain$ffs was primarily founded on the plea that the property originally belonged to Bhajan Singh and upon his death, though a share devolved upon his first wife Gurdial Kaur, she had no right to alienate the same. It was further pleaded that a0er her death, the said share ought to revert to the plain$ffs, who are children of Bhajan Singh from his second wife, and not to the legal heirs of Gurdial Kaur, and therefore, the subsequent transfers effected by such heirs were liable to be set aside.

¶13

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

RSA-3613-2023 (O&M)

¶15

The suit was contested by the defendants, who raised preliminary objec$on that the ma3er in issue already stood conclusively determined in earlier li$ga$on between the par$es, which had traveled up to this High Court and even the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was specifically pleaded that the ques$on of succession to the estate of Bhajan Singh, the share of Gurdial Kaur and the validity of the Will executed by her had already been adjudicated upon and had a3ained finality. The defendants further pleaded that the plain$ffs were not in possession and that the suit, in the present form, was not maintainable.

¶16

On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed necessary issues and, upon apprecia$on of the evidence led by the par$es, dismissed the suit on 19.10.2015. The trial Court held that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, that the plain$ffs had failed to establish their en$tlement to the relief of declara$on and injunc$on, and that the relief claimed was otherwise not maintainable.

¶17

Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the plain$ffs preferred an appeal. The learned first appellate Court, a0er re-appraisal of the en$re evidence on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 27.04.2023. It was held that the controversy regarding succession and the validity of the Will executed by Gurdial Kaur already stood finally adjudicated in earlier proceedings and could not be reopened. The appellate Court further held that the plain$ffs had failed to produce any cogent evidence to substan$ate their claim and that the findings recorded by the trial Court were well reasoned and did not call for interference.

¶18

S$ll dissa$sfied, the plain$ffs have approached this Court by way of the present second appeal.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that both the Courts below have erred in law in holding that the suit was barred by

¶20

Page No. 2 of 4 Pages

¶21

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

RSA-3613-2023 (O&M)

¶23

res judicata. It has been argued that Gurdial Kaur had only a limited estate in the property and was not competent to execute a Will, and therefore, upon her death, the property ought to have devolved upon the plain$ffs. It has further been contended that the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and the true nature of the rights of Gurdial Kaur.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have carefully gone through the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below as well as the record of the case.

¶25

At the outset, it requires to be no$ced that the jurisdic$on of this Court under Sec$on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to substan$al ques$ons of law. Interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only if such findings are shown to be perverse, based on misreading of evidence or in viola$on of se3led legal principles.

¶26

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the ques$on rela$ng to succession to the estate of Bhajan Singh, the share of Gurdial Kaur and the validity of the Will executed by her had earlier been the subject ma3er of li$ga$on between the par$es. The said li$ga$on culminated in findings by the competent Courts, including dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal, thereby rendering the findings final and binding between the par$es. The first appellate Court has specifically recorded that the Will executed by Gurdial Kaur stood upheld and that the controversy had already a3ained finality.

¶27

In the face of such conclusive adjudica$on, the a3empt of the plain$ffs to re-agitate the same issue by filing a fresh suit is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata. The plea sought to be raised by the appellants regarding the nature of the estate of Gurdial Kaur and her alleged incompetence to execute a Will is nothing but an indirect a3empt to reopen issues, which have already been finally se3led. Such a course is

¶28

Page No. 3 of 4 Pages

¶29

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

RSA-3613-2023 (O&M)

¶31

impermissible in law.

¶32

Even otherwise, both the Courts below have concurrently held, on apprecia$on of evidence, that the plain$ffs have failed to establish their case. No material has been pointed out to show that the said findings suffer from any perversity or are based on misreading of evidence.

¶33

The argument sought to be raised on the basis of provisions of the Hindu Succession Act does not give rise to any substan$al ques$on of law in the present case, par$cularly when the same issue stood concluded in earlier proceedings between the par$es.

¶34

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Courts below are well reasoned, based on proper apprecia$on of evidence and in accordance with law. No substan$al ques$on of law arises for considera$on in this appeal.

¶35