Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

i)     Smt. Kulwant Kaur - Wife (since deceased)
ii)    Harsharan Singh -      Son (defendant no.1)
iii)   Manjeet Singh      -   Son ( defendant no.2)
iv)    Smt. Balbir Kaur -     Daughter (defendant no.3)
v)     Smt. Narinder Kaur     daughter (since deceased plaintiff no. 3)
vi)    Smt. Sarabjit Kaur     daughter of ( plaintiff no. 1)
vii)   Smt. Ranjit Kaur       daughter of ( plaintiff no. 2)

It is further stated that Sh. Uttam Singh died intestate and as such all the legal heirs acquired equal undivided share in the suit property by operation of law. It is further stated that as Smt. Kulwant Kaur also expired intestate on 23.04.1989 and her undivided share in above said property was devolved upon the remaining legal heirs i.e. plaintiffs and defendants in equal share. It is further stated that defendant no. 1 and 2 requested the plaintiff to allow them to remain in possession of the undivided property and the said request of the defendants was acceded by the plaintiffs. It is further stated that on demise of Smt. Kulwant Kaur on 23.04.1999 plaintiffs asked the defendants to partition the suit property by meets and bounds and defendant no 1 and 2 requested the plaintiffs that they be allowed to continue in possession of the suit property for some time, so as to unable them to arrange an alternative accommodation and they further agreed to pay damages to the plaintiffs jointly @ 2000/- per month for their share in the suit property. It is further stated that the said arrangement was agreed by the parties for the period of one year and on the expiry of said one year, plaintiffs again approached the defendants to partition of the suit M. No. 15/16 Smt. Sarabjit Kaur Vs. Harsharan Singh property by meets and bounds and to settle the accounts however defendants kept on postponing the same on one reason or the other. It is further stated that in the month of November, 1996 plaintiff came to know that defendant no. 1 and 2 are trying to dispose of the property and when the plaintiffs enquired about the same from defendant no. 1 and 2, defendant no. 1 and 2 failed to give any satisfactory reply and plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 20.11.1996 upon the defendants calling upon them to effect the partition of the suit property among all the co-owners and give half of the suit property jointly to the plaintiffs. It is further stated that defendant no. 1 despite service of the legal notice did not reply to the same and filed a frivolous petition seeking probate of alleged Will dated 08.02.1975. It is further stated that on 31.12.1996 plaintiffs again approached the defendants for amicable settlement however defendants refused the same and further extended threats to the plaintiffs that they will dispose of the suit property. By way of present suit plaintiff has sought a decree of partition along with a decree of Rs. 72,000/- towards mesne profit and damages. Plaintiffs have further sought injunction that defendants be restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property.

On the other hand, it is stated by the defendants that Sh. Uttam Singh expired after executing a Will dated 08.02.1975 by virtue of which the suit property was devolved by Sh. Uttam Singh in favour of the defendants and as such the plaintiffs have no right in the suit property.

11. It is pertinent to state in here that defendants filed a probate petition qua the Will dated 08.02.1975 left by Sh. Uttam Singh and same was dismissed by the Court of Ld. ADJ Sh. G.P. Mittal vide order dated 08.04.2004.

6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.--When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act :
Provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara M. No. 15/16 Smt. Sarabjit Kaur Vs. Harsharan Singh coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship. Explanation 1.--For the purposes of this section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.

15. Proviso to Section 6 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 clearly provides that, that if a Hindu male dies having an interest in Mitakashara Coparcanarya property and has left behind him surviving a female relative as specified in Class-I of the schedule, the interest of the deceased in the Mithakshara Coparcanary property shall devolved by testamentary or intestate succession and not by survivorship. Further Section 8 of the said Act further states that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolves, firstly, upon the Heirs, being the relatives specified in Class-I of the schedule. Further Section 9 of the said Act provides that the heirs so mentioned in M. No. 15/16 Smt. Sarabjit Kaur Vs. Harsharan Singh Class-I schedule shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of other heirs."