R.S.A. No. 4397 of 2009 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 4397 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: April , 2011 Prem Nath Kher …..Appellant Vs. Union Territory and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.R.L. Batta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Saggi, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Plaintiff has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court dated January 8, 2007 and May 6, 2009 respectively dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for a declaration that the letter dated December 5, 2001 passed by the defendant- respondents i.e. the authorities of U.T. Chandigarh, transferring the property left by Bua Ditta Mal vide his Will dated March 3, 1973 wishing to distribute his house in Chandigarh to the plaintiff and his R.S.A. No. 4397 of 2009 (O&M) [2] brothers defendants- respondents No.3 and 4 floor-wise specifying the portion which they would be entitled to have inherited. Vide impugned letter, the property in dispute has been permitted to be transferred to the plaintiff and his brother in equal shares. The plaintiff claimed that the estate of defendant No.2 has wrongly transferred 100% rights in the house in question in equal shares. It was claimed that the sentiments of the deceased, father of the plaintiff- Bua Ditta Mal for distribution floor-wife should have been permitted. Official defendant- respondents pleaded that as per the conditions of allotment of the house, no fragmentation is permitted as per law and site has been rightly transferred in favour of the brothers in equal shares. It was pleaded that defendant- respondents No.3 and 4 had applied for the transfer of the rights of the deceased in equal shares vide their application dated September 16, 1998 as such the property has been equally transferred vide order dated February 17, 2001. Defendant- respondents No.3 and 4 had also contested the suit by taking up the plea that the suit is barred by res-judicata as vide judgment and decree dated October 16, 2002, Ms.Gurvinder Kaur, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, has already passed a decree that plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 are owners to the extent of 1/3rd share each in house in question. The Courts below after considering the contents of the Will in context to the provisions of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, read with Rules framed thereunder, upheld the decision of the official respondents transferring R.S.A. No. 4397 of 2009 (O&M) [3] 100% rights in the house in dispute in equal shares on the basis of registered Will dated March 3, 1973. Sh.R.L. Batta, learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant has contended that plaintiff has got a legal right to get the wish of Shri Bua Ditta Mal fulfilled who was the exclusive owner of the property incorporated in the record of the Estate as per his Will dated March 3, 1973 wherein he had wished that after his death the house in question which is double-storied house should be owned by his three sons in a manner that the one portion situated on the first floor which was built by his son-defendant No.3 and the other portion of the said floor built by his son Prem Nath Kher, i.e. the plaintiff, should be transferred to them and the ground floor portion possessed by the deceased should be given to his third son Kewal Krishan- defendant- respondent No.4 and the other portion of the ground floor which had been let out by him should be bequeathed in favour of three sons equally. Disinherited his daughters from this particular house, the deceased has mentioned in the Will that after his death right of rent from the house in dispute would vest in his wife and after the demise of his wife all his sons have equal right in the same. A concurrent finding of fact on the basis of clause 7 of the allotment letter Ex.PW1/A dated August 12, 1954 has been given by the Courts below that only one residential building/ unit was allowed to be constructed on the plot and no fragmentation thereof shall be permissible. Whether the wish of a person which is against the statute could be enforced in the Courts is the short question which is required to be R.S.A. No. 4397 of 2009 (O&M) [4] determined. The basic principle of administration of justice is to provide justice in accordance with the sanction of law. A relief can be granted to a litigant only in accordance with the principles of law which have been framed by the State. The relief claimed by the plaintiff to the extent that property of his father should be distributed amongst three brothers as per the registered Will has been permitted by respondents No.1 and 2 but the relief beyond the terms of the allotment and the Rules framed under the Act has been denied. The trial Court gave liberty to the plaintiff and respondents No.3 and 4 to claim over the portion of the house in his possession built by him at the time of the partition proceedings, if any. Rights of the plaintiff- appellant as co-sharer stands safeguarded. No ground is made out for interference in the judgments of the Courts below. Dismissed. April , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE