Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mrs. Parkash Singhal And Others vs Sunil Kumar Singhal And Others on 20 January, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CM No.13798-C of 2013 in/and
RSA No.3278 of 2007 (O&M)
Mrs. Parkash Singhal and others
Appellants
Versus
Sunil Kumar Singhal and others
Respondents
2. CM No.13795-C of 2013 in/and
RSA No.3279 of 2007 (O&M)
Mrs. Parkash Singhal and others
Appellants
Versus
Sunil Kumar Singhal and others
Respondents
Date of decision: 20th January, 2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Nitish K. Vasudeva, Advocate
for Sanjeev Kumar, assignee of the appellants.
Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the original appellants.
Mr. Amit Rawal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Manvinder Dalal, Advocate for the respondents.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL)
Both the instant appeals, i.e. (1) RSA No.3278 of 2007 and (2) RSA No.3279 of 2007, are being decided together by a common judgment as the property in dispute and parties to both the appeals are Singh Rattan Pal 2014.01.24 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.3278-79 of 2007 (O&M) 2 same. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals are taken on board.
The dispute herein is with regard to half share of the suit property, i.e. House No.1190, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh, which admittedly belonged to one Prem Kumar Singhal. After his death, Krishan Kumar Singhal son of Prem Kumar Singhal, by filing Civil Suit No.527 dated 13.12.1997, sought declaration to the effect that he has become owner of the aforesaid half share on the basis of a Will left by Prem Kumar Singhal on 25.11.1968, whereby the property was bequeathed in favour of his mother, namely, Sulakhi Devi and thereafter, on the basis of a registered Will dated 03.07.1975, Sulakhi Devi had bequeathed the disputed property in his favour. On the other hand, Madan Mohan Singhal, another son of Prem Kumar Singhal, filed Civil Suit No.222 dated 23.07.1993 seeking possession by way of partition of the aforesaid suit property on the basis of natural succession.
Both the aforesaid Civil Suits were decided separately by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.2002, wherein it was held that the suit property shall devolve upon the Legal Representatives of Prem Kumar Singhal as per natural succession, i.e. 1/7th share each. However, the Will dated 03.07.1975 executed by Sulakhi Devi in favour of Krishan Kumar Singhal was upheld and it was further held that he would be entitled to 2/7th share out of the aforesaid suit property, whereas the other Legal Representatives of Prem Kumar Singhal will take 1/7th share each.
Singh Rattan Pal 2014.01.24 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.3278-79 of 2007 (O&M) 3
Separate appeals were carried out by the aggrieved parties against the aforesaid judgments and decrees of the trial Court, which were decided vide two separate judgments and decrees dated 06.10.2006 by the first appellate Court maintaining the aforesaid status of the parties with regard to their rights in the suit property, except that Madan Mohan Singhal was given a right to seek rendition of accounts from Krishan Kumar Singhal.
Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgments and decrees of the courts below, the instant appeals have been filed which were admitted vide order dated 10.11.2010.
Vide order dated 13.12.2013, one Sanjeev Kumar was impleaded as assignee of the appellants in these appeals by passing the following order:
"In the present application, the applicant has sought impleadment on the ground that he is the prospective vendee of the suit property and in fact a compromise has been effected between the parties i.e. the appellant as well as the respondents in his favour and therefore, he be impleaded in this appeal for effective adjudication of the dispute.
Upon notice in the application to the counsel for the non-applicants, Mr.Sapan Dhir, Advocate, representing the appellants and Mr.Manvinder Dalal, Advocate for the respondents, who are present in Court, has accepted the notice in this application and have no objection in the impleadment of the applicant.
Let the applicant be impleaded as appellant being assignee of the appellant.
CM stands disposed of."Singh Rattan Pal 2014.01.24 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.3278-79 of 2007 (O&M) 4
Thereafter, the instant application i.e. CM No.13798-C of 2013 was moved on behalf of the appellants submitting that a compromise dated 11.11.2013 has been effected between the parties, which was taken on record vide order dated 10.01.2014.
Learned counsel representing the original appellants, the assignee and the respondents are present in Court. They are ad-idem that both the instant appeals be disposed of in terms of the compromise dated 11.11.2013, copy of which was placed on record as Annexure A-1 with CM No.13797-C of 2013 and the original of which was also placed on record, as noticed vide order dated 10.01.2014.
At this stage, learned counsel for the parties have further stated that since the assignee Sanjeev Kumar has been brought on record replacing the appellants and in fact he is a party to the agreement, he be treated as appellant in place of the original appellant(s) in both the appeals.
Ordered accordingly and the impugned judgments and decrees are modified accordingly.
Decree be drawn as per the compromise dated 11.11.2013. The aforesaid compromise shall form a part of the decree drawn by this Court.
Both the appeals are disposed of.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE January 20, 2014 rps Singh Rattan Pal 2014.01.24 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court