Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Kaur And Others vs Harbans Kaur And Others on 26 March, 2012
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
RSA No.510 of 2012 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.510 of 2012
Date of Decision: 26.3.2012
Mohinder Kaur and others
....Appellants
Versus
Harbans Kaur and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Ms. Rupinder K. Thind, Advocate for the appellants. JASWANT SINGH, J By filing the instant appeal, LRs of defendant No.1- appellants have prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment & decree dated 1.8.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar whereby their appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Baba Bakala decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondent No.1, has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed Civil Suit No.149 dated 14.7.2003 for declaration and joint possession to the extent of 1-3rd shares out of share of Shangara Singh son of Sardar Achhar Singh in the total land measuring 73 kanal, 16 marla as described in the head note of the plaint and challenged the mutation No.532 in favour of Sulakhan Singh-defendant No.1 being RSA No.510 of 2012 #2# illegal, null and void with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Upon notice, defendant No.1 opposed the suit by filing reply. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal having been filed by LRs of defendant No.1-appellant, the same has been dismissed by the learned first appellate Court, hence the present second appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that both the courts below have committed a grave error while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 as the plaintiff-respondent has no concern with the suit property as the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has not proved that she is either the sister of Shangara Singh or daughter of Acchar Singh.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal.
A perusal of paper book reveals that previously Acchar Singh Son of Ganda Singh was owner in possession of the suit land. After his death, he left behind three sons, namely, Sulakhan Singh, Gulzar Singh and Shangara Singh. In the present case, dispute is regarding the estate of Shangara Singh S/o Acchar Singh as he died unmarried and issueless. The plaintiff being the daughter of Acchar Singh (since deceased) and sister of Shangara Singh is claiming herself to be the legal heir and entitled to the 1/3rd share in the suit property left behind by Shangara Singh.
RSA No.510 of 2012 #3# There is no dispute that Acchar Singh son of Ganda Singh was the owner in possession of the suit property. It is also not disputed that Acchar Singh had three sons namely Sulakhan Singh, Gulzar Singh and Shangara Singh. The crucial point involved in this case is whether the plaintiff-respondent No.1 Harbans Kaur is the sister of Shangara Singh being the daughter of Acchar Singh and an ancillary question is regarding the inheritance of estate of Shangara Singh (since deceased). The mutation of inheritance of Shangara Singh is produced on record as Ex.P.5 in which the name of plaintiff-respondent No.1 is not mentioned in the pedigree table. Only two brothers Sulakhan Singh and Gulzar Singh are recorded. In the Jamabandi for the year 1969-70 (Ex.P.1), all three brothers have been shown to be owners of the land inherited from their father and in subsequent jamabandi also for the year 1979-80 (Ex.P.2), the position is the same. As per mutation No.532 (Ex.P.3), estate of Shangara Singh has devolved upon two brothers only and thereafter mutation No.533 (Ex.P.4) is sanctioned after the death of Gulzar Singh in which his widow Gurmeet Kaur is shown as owner in place of Gulzar Singh.
Ex.P.7 is the Birth Certificate of plaintiff-respondent No.1 and its original in Urdu is Ex.P.6 wherein her date of birth is shown as 27.11.1938 born in village Bedapur daughter of Acchar Singh. Gurmit Kaur,who is the widow of Gulzar Singh and sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the plaintiff-respondent No.1, has corroborated the assertion of plaintiff-respondent No.1. This being the position, both the courts RSA No.510 of 2012 #4# below have rightly come to the conclusion that Harbans Kaur- respondent No.1/plaintiff is the daughter of Acchar Singh and sister of Shangara Singh. There is no dispute that Shangara Singh died unmarried and issueless and there is no will left behind him regarding the disposal of his property after his death. As such, both the courts below have rightly concluded that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is having equal rights like her brother Sulakhan Singh and Gulzar Singh (now his widow Gurmit Kaur-PW2) in equal share. The mutation sanctioned, excluding her is nullity and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, this Court is concurring with the opinion expressed by both the courts below that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled for declaration to the extent of 1-3rd share of Shangara Singh alongwith joint possession and also the relief of permanent injunction.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court does not find any substantial question of law worth under Section 100 CPC.
Dismissed.
March 26,2012 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE