R.S.A.No.172 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.172 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 20, 2009 Manjit Kaur Jeji and another ...Appellants Versus Manjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. P.N.Arora, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The legal heirs of plaintiff-Amarjit Kaur are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree, arising out of suit for declaration and for mandatory injunction in respect of locker of the deceased son of the plaintiff in Punjab & Sind bank, Patiala. It is the case of the plaintiff that Tejinder Singh Dhillon, the only son of the plaintiff married to defendant No.1 on 13.4.1984. Son of the plaintiff died on 30.6.1995. He had two children, one of whom died on the same date, whereas, the other son is defendant No.2. It is pointed out that the son of the plaintiff has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, but on account of death of her son, the proceedings abated. It is pointed out that the deceased son of plaintiff hired a locker from Punjab and Sind Bank. The keys of the said locker were said to be in the custody of defendant No.1. The plaintiff claimed that the marriage of her son with defendant No.1 is void, as the same being between son and daughter of two sisters. R.S.A.No.172 of 2009 2 Both the Courts have recorded a finding of fact that marriage between the parties was void, but a finding was returned that the articles in the locker are that of defendant No.1 and, therefore, she is entitled to operate the said locker. Such finding was returned in view of the averments made in the written statement that the articles lying in the locker constitute istri dhan of defendant Manjit Kaur, which was not controverted by the plaintiff and the statement of Manjit Kaur corroborated by her father. It has been noticed by the learned trial Court that no cross question has been directed to them on behalf of the plaintiff to the contrary. Therefore, the inference is that the plaintiff admits the statement of defendant Manjit Kaur and her father to be correct. Such finding was affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that once the marriage between the parties has been found to be void, therefore, defendant No.1 could not be given any right to operate locker. It is, thus, contended that the relief granted is contrary to the finding recorded. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants at some length, I do not find any merit in the argument raised. The plaintiffs have claimed right to operate locker as the legal heirs of deceased Tejinder Singh Dhillon. After the declaration of marriage as void, no doubt the appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased, but that alone does not entitle the plaintiffs to operate the locker as on facts, it has been found that the contents in the locker are that of defendant No.1. Even if the marriage is void, the articles lying therein can be that of defendant No.1. The finding that the articles are of defendant No.1 is based upon the R.S.A.No.172 of 2009 3 statement of defendant No.1 and her father, which have not been questioned in cross-examination. Thus, I do not find that the relief granted is contrary to the finding recorded. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. July 20, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE