Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sadhu Singh vs Jaswant Singh on 26 November, 2018
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
RSA-5346-2017 (O&M) 1
136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-5346-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision : 26.11.2018
Sadhu Singh
... Appellant
Versus
Jaswant Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
AMIT RAWAL, J.
The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in claiming the declaration and permanent injunction viz-a-viz estate of his father Naranjan Singh, to the extent of ½ share in respect of land branding to be ancestral in nature as well as challenge to the registered Will dated 04.09.2002 and order dated 29.07.2010 passed by the Assistant Collector 1 st Grade, Sultanpur Lodhi, sanctioning the mutation bearing No.1012 in favour of the defendant. No reasons were assigned by the testator-Naranjan Singh in dis- inheriting the plaintiff.
The defendant opposed the suit by alleging that the land measuring 53 kanals 7 marlas, 67 kanals 15 marlas, 41 kanals 0 marals on different occasions spreading from 1961 to 1967 were purchased by the father and during the life-time, the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 10.04.2000 got the land measuring 14 kanals 14 marals each in favour of his wife and 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 29-12-2018 14:23:54 ::: RSA-5346-2017 (O&M) 2 his son. The plaintiff brought on record Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 i.e. copy of jamabandi for the year 2005-06, khasra girdawari for the year 2006, copy of another jamabandi for the year 1975-76, mutation, Will and copy of order of the Collector, whereas the defendant placed on record the various documents i.e. Ex.D1 to Ex.D15 to establish that the property was not ancestral in nature.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the defendant had not been able to prove the defence taken in the written statement with regard to the passing of the sale consideration in respect of the sale executed by the defendant. There was no equal distribution by the father as the plaintiff got only 29 kanals 8 marlas, whereas the claim was laid only to 65 kanals 15 marals. The entire property was purchased from the joint funds i.e. great grand father, therefore, Naranjan Singh was the trustee of the ancestral property. The Will was also found to be surrounded by the suspicious circumstances.
I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable as no pedigree table or revenue excerpt has been brought on record to establish the property was ancestral in nature, therefore, the alienation cannot be said to be without legal necessity. It was the wish of the testator or the owner of the land to bequeath the property in any manner being self-acquired. The equity also does not lie in favour of the plaintiff as during the life-time of his father, he got the land measuring 29 kanals and 8 marlas.
In this view of the matter, I do not subscribe to the submissions of Mr. Ahuja to form a different opinion than the one already arrived at by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 29-12-2018 14:23:54 ::: RSA-5346-2017 (O&M) 3 determination. No ground for interference is made out.
Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.
26.11.2018 ( AMIT RAWAL )
Yogesh Sharma
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No
Whether Reportable Yes/ No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 29-12-2018 14:23:54 :::