RSA No. 2410 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2410 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.02.2011. Nasib Kaur @ Balwinder Kaur .......Appellant Vs. Mandar Singh & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Bhinder, Advocate for the respondents ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of plaintiff in brief was that Chand Singh, her father was owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/8th share. The suit property was ancestral and coparcenary property of the parties. Chand Singh was the Karta of Joint Hindu Family. After the death of Chand Singh, plaintiff and defendants were the only legal heirs of deceased Chand Singh as mother of the parties had already died. After the death of Chand Singh, when the plaintiff inspected the revenue record, she found that defendants had got executed a gift deed registered in their favour qua land measuring 340 Kanals 9 Marlas. The rights of plaintiff had been ignored. The said gift deed was a result of RSA No. 2410 of 2007 (O&M) -2- fraud and forgery. The mutation sanctioned on the basis of gift deed was liable to be set aside. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that Chand Singh had executed a gift deed in their favour. Mutation had been sanctioned on the basis of gift deed executed by Chand Singh in favour of the defendants. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is Class-I heir of deceased Chand Singh ? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 share of the suit land as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the gift deed is a valid document? OPD 5. Whether suit is within limitation? OPP 6. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 7. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 8. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her own act and conduct? OPD 9. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2006, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda RSA No. 2410 of 2007 (O&M) -3- vide judgment and decree dated 20.2.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff has challenged the gift deed executed by Chand Singh in favour of defendants on 13.3.2002 by filing the present suit on 16.7.2005. The suit filed by plaintiff was thus, barred by limitation. Admittedly, Chand Singh was blessed with two sons i.e. Defendants from his first marriage. After the death of Tej Kaur wife of Chand Singh, he performed Kareva ceremony with Kartar Kaur. Plaintiff was born to Kartar Kaur out of the said wedlock. Chand Singh had died on 10.2.2005. Assuming that the property in the hands of Chand Singh was ancestral property (as per the case of the plaintiff), even then plaintiff had no right to claim any share in the coparcenary property as the amendment in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act came into effect w.e.f. 9.9.2005. So far as the share of Chand Singh in the ancestral property was concerned he could dispose of the same in the manner he liked. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 21, 2011 Gurpreet