Allowed

Ramesh Sharma v. Narender Parsad Jain

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2026RSA/813/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal restored a decree declaring the appellant widow's ownership of disputed property against her deceased sisters, ruling that alleged bigamy does not affect civil inheritance rights under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned first appeal judgment dated 29.05.1999 was set aside. The trial court judgment and decree dated 02.02.1994 declaring appellant ownership were restored.

Ramesh Sharma Vs Narender Parsad Jain — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

RSA No. 813 of 2000

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RSA No. 813 of 2000(O&M)

¶4

Ramesh Kumar Sharma

… Appellant

Versus

Narender Parsad Jain

…Responde n t.

Reserved on: 20.01.2026 Pronounced on: 23.01.2026

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶11

Argued by:- M r . Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate Fo r the appellant.

¶12

M r . Adarsh Jain, Sr. Advocate with M s . Amandeep Kaur, Advocate Fo r the respondent.

¶13

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶14

The pres e nt second appeal has been pr e ferred by the plaintiff of the ca s e, through her l e gal representative, assailing t he judgment dated 29.05.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby the app e al filed by defen d ant No.1 was allowed and t he judgment and decree dated 02.02.1994 passed by the learned trial Court, d ecreeing the suit for declarati o n, were set aside.

¶15

Fo r the sake of convenience and t o avoid any confusion, the part i es are being refer r ed to as per their status befor e the trial Court. The trial Court r e- cord, as availa b le on the Digital Management System (DMS), has been caref u lly perused.

¶16

Th e facts giving rise to the presen t litigation are largely undisput e d. The property i n dispute was owned by one R a ttan Lal Jain. He was married to Chhoti Bai, fro m whose wedlock no issue was born. According to the plain t iff Smt. Shanti De v i, about fifty two years prior to the institution of the suit (filed in March 1984), R attan Lal Jain, with the consent of his first wife Chhoti Bai, p e r- JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.23 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of 5 Pag e s

¶17

RSA No. 813 of 2000

¶18

formed marria g e with her at Karnal as per Hin d u rites and ceremonies. One m a le child was born out of this wedlock, who unfortunately predeceased his fath e r. Rattan Lal Jain t hereafter died issueless.

¶19

Th e case of the plaintiff further w as that during his lifetime, Rattan Lal Jain, in a fa m ily settlement, agreed to transfer the disputed house in fav o ur of his two wives, namely Chhoti Bai and the plaintiff, to the extent of half sh a re each and mad e an oral declaration to that ef f ect. After the death of Rattan L al Jain, both wo m en came into possession as c o-owners. Subsequently, on the death of Chhot i Bai, the plaintiff claimed to ha v e become the sole owner in p o s- session of the h ouse by survivorship.

¶20

It w as further pleaded that the plaintiff, having no independ e nt source of inco m e, let out a portion of the house to tenants and was receiving rent therefrom , while the remaining portion c o ntinued to remain in her poss e s- sion. The defendants, who are the real sisters o f Rattan Lal Jain, allegedly started interfering in h e r possession and forcibly colle c ting rent from the tenants, which compelled the p laintiff to file the suit seeking d eclaration of ownership and p r o- tection of her possession.

¶21

Defendant No.2 did not contest the suit. Defendant No.1, S m t. Sheetalwati, fil e d a written statement denyin g the marital status of the plain t iff and asserted t h at Shanti Devi was merely eng a ged as a cook by Rattan Lal Jain. While admittin g the marriage of Rattan Lal Jai n with Chhoti Bai and the fact t h at no issue was b o rn from that wedlock, defend a nt No.1 propounded a Will dated 02.03.1961 allegedly executed by Rattan Lal Jain in favour of Chhoti Bai, and a n- other Will date d 10.07.1970 allegedly execute d by Chhoti Bai in favour of the d e- fendants. It was claimed that after the death of Rattan Lal Jain, Chhoti Bai b e- came the absolute owner and thereafter, be q ueathed the property to the d e- fendants. On t h is basis, dismissal of the suit was prayed.

¶22

Necessary issues were framed b y the trial Court. The plaintiff led evidence in su p port of her claim. Despite repeated opportunities, the def e n- dants failed to lead any evidence, and their evi d ence was closed. JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.23 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of 5 Pag e s

¶23

RSA No. 813 of 2000

¶24

U p on appreciation of the mater i al on record, the trial Court r e- turned a clear f inding that the plaintiff was th e widow of Rattan Lal Jain and had succeeded to the suit property as its owner. The documents produced by the plaintiff, namely writings dated 01.05.1941 (P W -6/1) and 09.07.1944 (PW-6/ 2 ), authored by R a ttan Lal Jain himself, acknowl e dged the plaintiff as his second wife. The Wills propounded by the defendants were not proved due to lack of evidence. Cons e quently, the suit was decreed v ide judgment dated 02.02.199 4 .

¶25

During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Shanti Devi expired and was substitute d by Barham Sarup as her lega l representative on the basis o f a will dated 13.0 6 .1989. Defendant No.1 also e x pired and was substituted by h er son Narinder P a rshad Jain.

¶26

Th e appeal filed by defendant N o.1 was partly allowed by the learned First A p pellate Court. While concurrin g with the finding that Shanti D e vi was the widow of Rattan Lal Jain, the Appellat e Court nevertheless dismissed the suit on the reasoning that even prior to the H indu Marriage Act 1955, biga m y was an offenc e under the Indian Penal Code 1860 and therefore, such a m a r- riage could not confer inheritance rights. It fu r ther held that the documents r e- lied upon by th e plaintiff did not confer owner s hip; that Barham Sarup could n ot inherit as he w a s merely a cousin of Shanti De v i; that rent was being collected by the defendant s , and that the suit for declar a tion without injunction was n ot maintainable.

¶27

Ag g rieved by the reversal, the pl a intiff through her legal repres e n- tative has appr o ached this Court. It has been c o ntended that once the Appell a te Court upheld t h e finding that Shanti Devi was the widow of Rattan Lal Jain, she was entitled to inherit the property as his onl y Class I heir. It is argued that the Appellate Cour t committed a serious error in i m porting concepts of criminal l a w relating to bigamy into civil succession. It is f u rther submitted that none of the Wills set up by the defendants were proved, a n d that the Will dated 13.06.1989 in favour of Barham Sarup was accepted duri n g substitution without objecti o n.

¶28

JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.23 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

Page N: 3 of 5 Pag e s

¶30

RSA No. 813 of 2000 The contradict o ry findings recorded by the Ap p ellate Court regarding owners h ip of Anand Sarup @ Arhant Kumar were also hig h lighted.

¶31

Le a rned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly d id not dispute th e concurrent finding that Shanti Devi was the widow of Rattan L al Jain and was e n titled to inherit the property, b ut questioned the entitlement of Braham Sarup.

¶32

1. Th i s Court has considered the rival submissions and carefully exa m ined the record.

¶33

Th e finding that Shanti Devi wa s the widow of Rattan Lal Jain is based on documentary evidence emanating f rom Rattan Lal Jain himself and stands affirme d by both the Courts below. This finding has attained finality.

¶34

O n ce Shanti Devi is held to be the widow of Rattan Lal Jain, the c o n- clusion drawn b y the First Appellate Court tha t she was disentitled to inherit the property on ac c ount of alleged bigamy is legally untenable. Criminal liability u n- der the Indian Penal Code has no bearing on civil rights of succession. Prior to the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, sec o nd marriage amongst Hindus w as not void. Succ e ssion to property is governed b y personal law, and not by pe n al provisions. The reasoning adopted by the App e llate Court in this regard refle c ts a clear misappl i cation of law.

¶35

Admittedly, Rattan Lal Jain died issueless. Upon his death, Sha n ti Devi, being his widow, became his sole Class I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act . The sisters of the deceased f a ll in Class II and stand excluded from inheritan c e. The defendants, therefore, a cquired no right in the suit pr o p- erty after the d e ath of Rattan Lal Jain.

¶36

Th e alleged Wills propounded by the defendants were never proved in accordance w ith law. No attesting witness was examined and no evidence w as led. The trial C o urt rightly discarded them, and the Appellate Court did not up s et this finding. In absence of a valid Will, the pr o perty devolved by intestate s u c-

¶37

cession.

¶38

JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.23 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

Page N: 4 of 5 Pag e s

¶40

RSA No. 813 of 2000

¶41

Th e objection raised to the locus of Barham Sarup is equally misconceived. He w as brought on record as legal representative of Shanti Devi on the basis of a W ill dated 13.06.1989, and such substitution was allowed with o ut objection. In a n y case, the title of Shanti De v i stood perfected during her li f e- time, and succ e ssion to her estate does not aff e ct the correctness of the decree.

¶42

Th e reasoning of the Appellate C ourt that the suit was not maintainable for w a nt of injunction is also unsustainable. The plaintiff asserted ti t le and possession and complained of interferen c e. A suit for declaration in such circumstances w as clearly maintainable.

¶43

Th e judgment of the First Appell a te Court suffers from internal inconsistencies and perversity, as it upheld findings on several issues against the defendants while still granting them relief. S uch a judgment cannot be s u s- tained.

¶44

Fo r the foregoing reasons, this C o urt is of the considered view t h at the judgment d ated 29.05.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Jud g e, Panipat, is legally unsustainable and warrants i n terference.

¶45

Consequently, the present secon d appeal is allowed. The judgm e nt and decree da t ed 29.05.1999 are set aside a n d the judgment & decree dated 02.02.1994 passed by the learned trial Court a re restored.The plaintiff, through her legal repre s entative, shall be deemed to b e the owner in possession of the suit property. Parties shall bear their own cost s .Ordered accordingly.

¶46

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 23.01.2026 JUDGE Jiten

¶47

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

¶48

Uploaded on : January 23 , 2026

¶49

JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.23 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

Page N: 5 of 5 Pag e s

Ramesh Sharma v. Narender Parsad Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Sharma v. Narender Parsad Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birkha Ram Vs Leiah Biradari

Shyam Lal Vs Hem Raj and Ors.

(O&M) Shyam Lal Vs Hem Raj and Others

Kaushalya Bai Vs Jeet Singh and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs Land Acquisition Collector, Panipat

Rizak Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.