IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.1653 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:19.11.2010 Premo Devi .....Appellant Vs. Jagat Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. C.M. No.4929-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to just exceptions. Delay, if any, in making up the deficiency in court fee is condoned. C.M. No.4930-C of 2010 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, the application is allowed subject to just exceptions and the delay of 34 days in filing this appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No.1653 of 2010 This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby her suit seeking a declaration to the effect that she was owner to the extent of 1/6th share of the suit land with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, respondent No.1 was the owner of the suit property which was relinquished by him in favour of R.S.A. No.1653 of 2010 (O&M) -2- respondents No.2 and 3, his minor sons. Claiming that the suit property was ancestral at the hands of respondent No.1 - Jagat Ram, appellant had set up her claim that she being one of the member of the Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property, was entitled to suit property as claimed. However, both the courts below while rejecting her claim held that relinquishment deed dated 20.5.2003 had come into existence and was implemented before coming into force of The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2004 whereby a daughter has been granted inheritance rights to the ancestral property with effect from 20.12.2004. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not dispute the fact that any testamentary disposition which has been acted upon prior to the appointed date i.e. 20.12.2004, a daughter has no right in the suit property being co-parcenary in ancestral property. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. November 19, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE