Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh And Anr. vs Dalip Kaur And Ors. on 10 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)135PLR558
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. Having remained unsuccessful before the two Courts below, the plaintiffs Jagjit Singh and Amrik Singh sons of Pal Singh have now filed the present regular second appeal. The judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below have been challenged by them.
2. Certain facts be noticed.
One Labh Singh had two sons namely Pal Singh and Kartar Singh. Kartar Singh died in the year 1948 leaving behind his widow Dalip Kaur and his son Surjit Singh. However, Dalip Kaur remarried after the death of Kartar Singh and as such the estate of Kartar Singh was succeeded by Surjit Singh his son. The aforesaid Surjit Singh also died in the year 1964. The property left behind by Surjit Singh was mutated in the name of Dalip Kaur (his mother).
3. The present suit for permanent injunction has been filed by Jagjit Singh and Amrik Singh for restraining defendant No. 1 Dalip Kaur from alienating any part out of the land measuring 148 Kanals 13 marlas and also not to interfere into their possession. The plaintiffs being sons of Pal Singh have claimed that their grandfather Labh Singh had already died in Pakistan and his land was mutated in the name of Pal Singh and Kartar Singh. It has been further stated by the plaintiffs that after the death of Kartar Singh his estate was inherited by his son Surjit Singh only since Dalip Kaur had relinquished her right on the ground that she had remarried. The plaintiffs have claimed that since Surjit Singh also died in the year 1964 and he was unmarried at the time of his death, therefore, after his death, the estate left behind by Surjit Singh would be inherited by the present plaintiffs namely Jagjit Singh and Amrik Singh. In the suit they have challenged the mutation entered in favour of Dalip Kaur.
4. Defendants No. 2 to 6 chose not to contest the suit. The suit has been contested only by defendant No. 1 Dalip Kaur. She has filed a written statement, whereby she has admitted the death of Kartar Singh and also that after the death of Kartar Singh his son Surjit Singh had succeeded the property left behind by him. However, defendant No. 1 Dalip Kaur has asserted her title to the suit property on the ground that Surjit Singh had died in the year 1964 and she being the mother of the aforesaid Surjit Singh, was entitled to succeed to the entire estate left by Surjit Singh under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act 1956. She has also asserted that the plaintiffs or any other person did not have any right to succeed to the property of Kartar Singh.
5. A further plea was raised by defendant No. 1 that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel in as much as Pal Singh father of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 6 had filed a similar suit which was dismissed on January 21, 1977.
6. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs felt aggrieved and challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by filing an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. Even the aforesaid appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. Now, the plaintiffs have approached this Court through the present regular second appeal challenging the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below.
7. It is not in dispute that Dalip Kaur after the death of Kartar Singh had remarried. In fact while appearing as a witness, the aforesaid Dalip Kaur has candidly admitted this fact. However, her remarriage after the death of Kartar Singh is wholly irrelevant to the present controversy in as much as on the death of Kartar Singh the property left by him was inherited exclusively by his son Surjit Singh. It is also not disputed that Surjit Singh was born out of the wedlock of Kartar Singh and Dalip Kaur. Thus Dalip Kaur is the natural mother of Surjit Singh. When Surjit Singh died in the year 1964, then Dalip Kaur being the class one heir was entitled to succeed to the estate left behind by him alone and to the exclusion of all other persons namely sons of Pal Singh etc. In this view of the matter, the claim made by the plaintiffs Jagjit Singh and Amrik Singh to the estate of Surjit Singh was totally without any basis.
8. There is another aspect of the matter also. The father of the present plaintiffs namely Pal Singh had also filed a civil suit for declaration for claiming the aforesaid property. The aforesaid civil suit was dismissed in default vide order dated October 16, 1974, A copy of the aforesaid order dated October 16, 1974 has been proved on record as Exhibit DF. Subsequently, another suit was filed by Pal Singh, which was again dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated January 21, 1977 (Exhibit DG). The learned trial Court taking into consideration the aforesaid two suits and the orders passed thereupon had rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are now estopped by their acts and conduct to file the present suit. Nothing has been pointed to me that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are in any manner erroneous. The various pleas raised by the appellants in the present appeal are totally an after- thought and are not supported by any pleadings contained in the plaint. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Parties, shall, however, bear their own costs.
Appeal dismissed.