R.S.A.No. 3501 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3501 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.1.2011 Mohinder Kaur and others ......Appellants Versus Gurmail Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Sihota, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.R.Rana, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they were joint owners in the joint possession of the suit land to the extent of half share except the share that already stood in their name. R.S.A.No. 3501 of 2010 (O&M) 2 The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that the property in dispute was joint Hindu family coparcenary property. The suit land was more than 132 bighas except the constructed area. The pedigree table as depicted in para 2 of the judgment of the first Appellate Court is as under:- Deva Singh | | Narain Singh | | Chhajja Singh | | _________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | Balwant Joginder Inder Kartar Sardara Bakhshish Singh Singh Singh Singh Singh Singh (married (married (unmarried (unmarried (unmarried (unmarried died) died) issueless issueless issueless issueless died) died) died) died) | | | | | | | | | | | | ___________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | Jagir Singh | Tara Singh Ajaib Singh Ajmer Singh Harnek Singh (unmarried | (unmarried (unmarried married married issueless | issueless ) issueless) | | died | | | |______________ | | | | | | Gurmail Singh Kesar Singh Sarabjit Singh Paramjit Singh (married) (married) | | _____________ ___ | | Mewa Singh Rajinder Jagdev Singh Singh @ Kala Singh @ Bhola Singh The collusive decree obtained by Gurmail Singh and Kesar Singh regarding share of Inder Singh in the suit property was illegal, null and void. The sale deeds alleged to have been executed by Sardara Singh in favour of Gurmail Singh and Kesar Singh were R.S.A.No. 3501 of 2010 (O&M) 3 illegal, null and void and were without consideration. Sardara Singh was not competent to execute the sale deeds. Bakhshish Singh without any authority executed a Will in favour of Gurmail Singh and the same was a result of fraud and misrepresentation and had no value in the eyes of law. Tara Singh executed a sale deed in favour of Mewa Singh and Rajinder Singh @ Bhola Singh without any legal necessity and hence, the same was illegal, null and void. The sale deed was without consideration and was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. The Will alleged to have been executed by Ajaib Singh in favour of Jagdev Singh @ Kala Singh was also illegal. After the death of Kartar Singh, 22 bighas of land were inherited by Inder Singh, Sardara Singh and Bakhshish Singh to the extent of 1/3rd share. The said mutation was also illegal, null and void and was not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. The share of Kartar Singh was to be entered in favour of legal representative of Balwant Singh, legal representatives of Joginder Singh, Sardara Singh, Bakhshish Singh and Inder Singh. Defendant No.1,2, 4 and 6 to 9 in their written statement averred that the suit property was not joint property of the parties. Tara Singh and Ajaib Singh had transferred their share in favour of answering defendants. Inder Singh had suffered a decree in favour of Gurmail Singh and Kesar Singh as he was residing with them. Sardara Singh had executed sale deed in favour of Gurmail Singh and Kesar Singh. Bakhshish Singh had executed a valid Will in R.S.A.No. 3501 of 2010 (O&M) 4 favour of Mewa Singh and Harjinder Singh. Transfer deed executed by Tara Singh in favour of Mewa Singh and Rajinder Singh was legal and valid. The Will executed by Ajaib Singh was also a valid document. The plaintiffs had no concern with the property owned and possessed by Ajaib Singh On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the suit property is ancestral and coparcenary property of the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether Vasika No.4182 dated 1.3.2002 and sale deed No.4183 dated 1.3.2002 in favour of Gurmail Singh and Kesar Singh are null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the property previously owned by Kartar Singh and mutated in favour of Inderjit Singh, Sardara Singh and Bakshish Singh is also illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff ? OPP 4. Whether the judgment and decree dated 1.12.1987 is also illegal, null and void ? OPP 5. Whether the sale deed dated 29.8.1991 executed by Tara Singh in favour of Mewa Singh and Rajinder Singh is also null and void ? OPP 6. Whether the exchange through mutation No.953 as well as Mutation No.951, 953, 881 and mutation No.835, 793, 774, 1148, 1149, 171, 1166, 1040, 1053 are also R.S.A.No. 3501 of 2010 (O&M) 5 illegal, null and void ? OPP 7. Whether Sardara Singh was not competent to execute the sale deed dated 1.3.02 in favour of defendants ? OPP 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction? OPP 10. Whether the plaintiffs are not competent and no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 11.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 12. Whether the suit is under valued ? OPD 13.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 14. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 6.11.2009. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.4.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. A perusal of pedigree table reveals that initially Chhajja R.S.A.No. 3501 of 2010 (O&M) 6 Singh had inherited the property from his forefathers. Chhajja Singh had six sons. The parties are children of Balwant Singh and Joginder Singh, sons of Chhajja Singh. So far as Inder Singh, Kartar Singh, Sardara Singh and Bakhshish Singh, sons of Chhajja Singh are concerned they had died un-married and issueless. Thus, the property in their possession became their self acquired property and they could dispose of the same in the manner they liked. Whether Inder Singh, Kartar Singh, Sardara Singh and Bakshish had inherited the suit property by way of succession or if they had got it through decree dated 19.9.1978, they had become exclusive owners of the property qua their share. Since they were issueless, even if they were a members of the coparcenary yet the property became their self acquired property. In case they got the property by way of decree dated 19.9.1978 even then the property became their self acquired property. In these circumstances, the fact that whether the decree dated 19.9.1978 was a legal and a valid decree or not is irrelevant. After the death of Kartar Singh, his property was liable to be inherited by his surviving brothers i.e.Inder Singh, Sardara Singh and Bakhshish Singh. Since the property in the hands of Sardara Singh became his self acquired property, he could dispose of the same in the manner he liked and hence, the sale deed executed by him in favour of Kesar Singh and Gurmail Singh dated 1.3.2002 cannot be said to be illegal. In order to prove the sale deeds, R.S.A.No. 3501 of 2010 (O&M) 7 defendants examined attesting witness Inderjit Singh. Property in the hands of Inder Singh was his self acquired and hence, the decree dated 1.12.1987 suffered by him in favour of Gurmail Singh and Kesar Singh cannot be said to be illegal and invalid. Similarly property in the hands of Bakshish Singh was also his self acquired property and the Will executed by him in favour of Mewa Singh and Harjinder Singh dated 30.5.1994 was liable to be upheld. In order to prove the due execution of the Will, defendants examined Santokh Singh, who was a marginal witness to the sale deed. The mutation was duly sanctioned on the basis of Will executed by Bakhshish Singh after his death. Tara Singh, brother of the the plaintiffs, had also died un- married and issueless. The property in his hands also became his self acquired property and he could transfer the same in the manner he liked. Hence, the sale deed executed by Tara Singh in favour of Mewa Singh dated 29.8.1996 cannot be held to be illegal. Ajaib Singh, brother of the plaintiffs, had also died un-married and issueless. The property in his hands became his self acquired property and he could transfer the same in the manner he liked. Consequently, the sale deed executed by him dated 21.5.2004 in favour of Kesar Singh cannot be said to be illegal. Mutations were sanctioned on the basis of sale deeds executed by Tara Singh and Ajaib Singh. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. No substantial question of R.S.A.No. 3501 of 2010 (O&M) 8 law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 27, 2011 anita