RSA No. 981 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 981 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.03.2011. Mohinder Kaur & another .......Appellants Vs. Amrit Kaur & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. H.S.Sirohi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the respondents No. 1,2,4 and 5. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that she was owner in possession of the house bearing M.C. No. B-V-426. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that Pritam Singh was the owner in possession of the house in question and he gave half of the portion of the house to Ajaib Singh and the remaining half portion to Jaswant Singh. The portion that came to the share of plaintiff bears municipal No. B-V-426, whereas the portion that had come to the share of defendants No. 1 and 2 bears No. B-V-425. Defendants No. 1 and 2, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that Pritam Singh was not the owner of the house in dispute. Jaswant Singh was neither owner nor in possession of the property in dispute. RSA No. 981 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The property bearing No. B-V-425 was owned and possessed by Jangir Kaur and she had executed a Will in favour of the answering defendants qua the said property. The property No. 426 is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2. Plaintiff had already sold her half share and had no concern with the remaining half share of the property bearing No. B-V-426. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff in possession of the house in dispute? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPD 4. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.2008, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants No. 1 and 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. From a complete reading of the plaint it transpires that Pritam Singh was initially owner of a house. Half portion of the said house was given by him to his son Ajaib Singh and RSA No. 981 of 2010 (O&M) -3- remaining half portion of the house was given by him to his son Jaswant Singh. The share that had come to Jaswant Singh bears No. B-V-426, whereas the portion of the house that had come to the share of defendants bears No. B-V-425. Jangir Kaur, wife of Pritam Singh had executed a will dated 27.10.1989. The said Will is a registered document and the execution of the said Will is not in dispute. As per the said Will, Jangir Kaur bequeathed the house bearing No. B-V-425 in favour of her grand sons defendants No. 1 and 2, whereas she bequeathed her remaining property to her son Jaswant Singh. Plaintiff is the widow of Jaswant Singh. Thus, the plaintiff inherited the house in dispute after the death of her husband which had come to him on the basis of Will executed in his favour by his mother. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record had given findings of fact that the house in question was owned and possessed by the plaintiff on the basis of the Will executed by Jangir Kaur. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 03, 2011 Gurpreet