R.S.A.No. 3077 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3077 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 16.3.2011 Narinder Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Jarnail Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of house No.507. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the house in dispute was initially owned and possessed by Tek Singh. Tek Singh had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 2.12.1980. After the death of Tek Singh, plaintiff had remained in possession of the suit property. Jasmer Singh, father of the defendants, however, started alleging that he was owner of the suit property. Suit filed by the plaintiff against Jasmer Singh for declaration was decreed by the trial Court on 14.3.1984. The said judgment and decree were upheld up to this Court. Mutation had been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. However, during the pendency of the suit, defendants had damaged R.S.A.No. 3077 of 2010(O&M) 2 the old construction of the house of Tek Singh and had raised new construction although they had no right to do so. Defendants in their written statement denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that Tek Singh had died issueless and unmarried. He had not executed any Will in favour of the plaintiff. Answering defendants were in possession of the suit property as owner. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the Will dated 2.12.1980 was executed in favour of the plaintiff by Tek Chand? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the property in question as alleged in para No.6 of the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the possession was taken by the defendants during the pendency of the previous suit and decree dated 14.3.1984 and the consequent appeal ? OPP 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession the suit property? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi? OPD 6. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ? OPD 7. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC ? OPD 8. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs U/S 35-A of CPC ? OPD 9. Relief.” The Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) decreed the suit of the plaintiff R.S.A.No. 3077 of 2010(O&M) 3 vide judgment and decree dated 13.2.2007. The said judgment and decree were upheld by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 8.3.2010 in an appeal filed by the defendants. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff Jarnail Singh had earlier filed a suit for declaration against Jasmer Singh, father of the defendants with regard to the agricultural land and property left in abadi by Tek Singh on the basis of Will dated 2.12.1980. The said suit was decreed by Senior Sub Judge vide judgment and decree dated 14.9.1994 (Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3). The Will set up by the plaintiff dated 2.12.1980, whereby Tek Singh had bequeathed his property in favour of the plaintiff was held to be a genuine and validly executed document. Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-5 are the judgment and decree passed in a suit filed by Jasmer Singh, father of the defendants against Tek Singh. A perusal of Ex.P-6 reveals that Jasmer Singh had filed civil Suit No.125-CS of 1981 against Tek Singh for declaration that he was owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 16 kanals 11 marlas and house No.507 situated in abadi deh of village Harnaul. The said suit was dismissed by Additional Senior Sub Judge on 14.3.1984. Jasmer Singh had based his case on the basis of a compromise. Thus, the suit filed by the father of the defendants for declaration that he was owner of house No.507 in question was dismissed. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff whose suit was decreed qua declaration that he had become owner of the R.S.A.No. 3077 of 2010(O&M) 4 agricultural land as well as the property left by Tek Singh in the abadi of village Harnaul was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 16, 2011 anita