Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbir Singh And Another(Lrs Of ... vs Jagir Kaur And Others on 21 May, 2012
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
RSA No.2161 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2161 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: May 21, 2012
Gurbir Singh and another(LRs of Mohinder Kaur) .......Appellants
Versus
Jagir Kaur and others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Ashok Aneja, Advocate for the appellants.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
CM No.6000-C of 2011 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the present second appeal. The application is duly supported by an affidavit.
2. In view of the averments made in the application, delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. CM disposed of.
RSA No.2161 of 2011
4. Plaintiff - Mohinder Kaur filed a suit praying for a decree of declaration to the effect that she was owner of the suit land and the mutation bearing Nos.946 and 1475 had been wrongly sanctioned in favour of the defendants and also sought the consequential relief of permanent injunction RSA No.2161 of 2011 (O&M) 2 restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring the suit land in any manner.
5. In brief, the plaintiff pleaded that her marriage was solemnized with Mukhtiar Singh. Said Mukhtiar Singh expired leaving behind the plaintiff as his only legal heir, she being his widow. The plaintiff pleaded that defendant No.1 - Jagir Kaur was claiming herself to be the widow of Mukhtiar Singh and defendants No.2 and 3 were claiming themselves to be the son and daughter of Mukhtiar Singh and they had got the mutation sanctioned qua the suit land in connivance with the revenue authorities. Against such backdrop, the suit had been filed.
6. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2007 and even a civil appeal preferred by Mohinder Kaur, plaintiff stands dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 16.11.2010. Resultantly, the plaintiff-appellants are in second appeal.
7. I have heard Mr.Ashok Aneja, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
8. The Courts below have concurrently held that no evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the appellant before the trial Court to substantiate the fact of her marriage having been solemnized with Mukhtiar Singh. Even documents of general usage in the nature of ration card, voter card which could reflect the appellant to be the wife of Mukhtiar Singh had not been forthcoming. Still further, the marriage of the appellant and co- habitation with Mukhtiar Singh as his wife was clearly to her personal knowledge. The plaintiff-appellant chose not to even appear in the Court so RSA No.2161 of 2011 (O&M) 3 as to depose her case on oath. It was only her power of attorney Gurdev Singh, PW4 who appeared and from his deposition, nothing could be made out so as to substantiate and corroborate the plea of the marriage of the appellant with Mukhtiar Singh. Rather, in his cross-examination, PW4 stated that he did not even know against whom Mohinder Kaur had filed the suit. Clearly, PW4 Gurdev Singh did not have the capacity to depose with regard to the matter which was in the sphere of personal knowledge of the appellant herself.
9. On the other hand, the defendants led convincing evidence to prove themselves to be the legal heirs of Mukhtiar Singh. Jagir Kaur, defendant No.1 stepped into the witness box as DW6 and clearly deposed that she had entered into matrimony with Mukhtiar Singh sixty years ago as per Sikh rites. She further deposed that she had given birth to Balkar Singh, defendant No.2 and Balwinder Kaur, defendant No.3 out of such wedlock and from the loins of Mukhtiar Singh. She also deposed that her son Balkar Singh, defendant No.2 had performed the last rites of Mukhtiar Singh. DW1 Kikkar Singh who was Sewadar at Shri Gurudwara Sahib, Kiratpur was produced by the defendants who proved on record the entry in the register as Exhibit D1 regarding the immersion of the ashes of deceased Mukhtiar Singh at Gurudwara Patalpur, Kiratpur Sahib. Such entry bearing No.7457 in Exhibit D1 would show that the ashes of Mukhtiar Singh were immersed by Balkar Singh, his son. The defendant-respondents also adduced on record the school admission register, Exhibit D4, wherein Balkar Singh, defendant No.2, was recorded to be the son of deceased Mukhtiar Singh.
RSA No.2161 of 2011 (O&M) 4
10. As such, it is upon due appreciation of evidence that the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact holding the present appellant to be not the widow of Mukhtiar Singh. Such finding of fact would be binding on this Court in second appeal.
11. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal.
12. The present appeal must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.
13. Appeal dismissed.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
May 21, 2012 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No