RSA No. 3482 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3482 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.9.2011 ... Harpreet Kaur and others ................Appellants vs. Ravneet Kaur and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Present: Sh. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate for the appellants. ... K.C. Puri, J. There is a delay of 149 days in filing the present appeal. The same stands condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application. This is an appeal preferred by the defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 8.11.2010 passed by Sh. Jatinderpal Singh Khurmi, Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2008 passed by Ms. Paramjit Kaur, Civl Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, was dismissed. RSA No. 3482 of 2011 -2- Briefly stated, Ravneet Kaur and others filed suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession to the extent of 1/5th share of the residential house No. 390, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar as detailed in the head note of the plaint. Consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the share of the plaintiffs, was also sought. The facts, as gathered from the record, are that Avtar Singh was the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants No. 2, 3 and late Harjinder Singh as well as of Smt. Kulwinder Kaur, who all were born to defendant No.1 from her marriage with Avtar Singh. Avtar Singh had purchased the suit property fully detailed in the head note of the plaint vide two sale deeds dated 13.3.1978 and 11.4.1980. Avtar Singh expired on 1.12.1994 intestate. On his death, property was inherited by defendant No.1 and her three sons and one daughter Kulwinder Kaur. Kulwinder Kaur was married to Kulbir Singh- plaintiff No.3 and out of this wedlock, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 were born out. Kulwinder Kaur died on 12.10.1998 and plaintiffs being her legal heirs inherited the share of Kulwinder Kaur to the extent of 1/3rd each since 1/15th share each in the property in dispute. Harjinder Singh one of the sons of Avtar Singh expired on 1.7.2001 intestate and is survived by defendants No. 4, 5 and 6. On notice, defendants No. 1 and 2 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that they have no objection if the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in their favour. Defendant No.3 was proceeded against ex parte. Defendants No. 4 to 6 filed separate written statement by taking preliminary objection RSA No. 3482 of 2011 -3- that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands; plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit. The present suit is frivolous and baseless. It was pleaded that plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the answering respondents with connivance of other defendants just to harass them. Plaintiffs knew very well that husband of defendant No.4 namely, Harjinder Singh had purchased the share of defendant No.3 Bahadur Singh vide registered sale deed. The plaintiffs are neither owner nor in possession of the suit property and they are residing at village Chomon, Sub Tehsil Adampur, District Jalandhar. So, they are not in possession. However, it is admitted that Harjinder Singh had died on 1.7.2001 intestate and is survived by defendants No. 4 to 6. Plaintiffs filed replication denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD RSA No. 3482 of 2011 -4- 6. Relief. In order to prove their case, Kulbir Singh – plaintiff No.3 himself appeared as PW-1 and produced certain documents. In rebuttal, defendant No.4 appeared herself as DW-1 and also examined DW-2 Jagdish Chander, Record Keeper, Office of Sub Registrar, Jalandhar and tendered into evidence attested copy of sale deed Exhibit DX1. Learned trial Court has taken issues No. 1 and 2 together and returned the finding on both these issues in faovur of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Issues No. 3 to 5 were also decided against the defendants and consequently the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration that plaintiffs are joint owner in possession of 1/5th share of the suit property, was decreed. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment and decree dated 15.2.2008 passed by Ms. Paramjit Kaur, PCS, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide which the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed, the defendant-appellants preferred the Ist appeal. The said appeal was heard by Sh. Jatinderpal Singh Khurmi, Additional District Judge, Jalandhar and vide judgment dated 8.11.2010, the appeal was dismissed with costs. Feeling still dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 8.11.2010 and judgment and decree dated 15.2.2008, referred to above, the defendant-appellants have preferred the present regular second appeal. The appellants in paragraph No. 2 of the grounds of appeal have mentioned that following substantial questions of law have RSA No. 3482 of 2011 -5- arisen in the present appeal for consideration:- i) Whether the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside being based on conjectures and surmises and having been passed in utter disregard of the legal position? ii)Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court erred in law in holding that the plaintiffs/respondents were entitled to inherit the property of Avtar Singh? iii)Whether learned Lower Appellate Court wrongly held that daughters are also entitled to share in the property of their father? Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that daughter has no right in the property of Avtar Singh. Both the Courts below have based their finding upon the conjectures and surmises and have passed the judgment in utter disregard of the legal position. Both the Courts below have wrongly held that plaintiffs are entitled to inherit the property of Avtar Singh. I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. Admittedly, Avtar Singh was owner in possession of the suit property and he died intestate. He has three sons, namely, Sudagar Singh, Bahadur Singh and late Harjinder Singh, one daughter namely, Kulwinder Kaur, since deceased and wife Sardarni Surinder Kaur. It is not disputed that Avtar Singh died on 1.12.1994. None of the parties have claimed any Will. The property was self acquired property and according to the Hindu Succession Act, the same has to be inherited by his three sons, one daughter and wife Surinder Kaur in RSA No. 3482 of 2011 -6- equal share. It is also not disputed during the course of arguments that Kulwinder Kaur died and plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 being her sons and plaintiff No.3 being her husband, are her legal heirs. So, the share of Kulwinder Kaur has to be inherited by the plaintiffs. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that property of Avtar Singh has to be inherited by his legal heirs described above including the appellants. There is nothing on the file that judgments of Courts below are based upon mis-reading and mis-representation of the evidence. The daughter has to inherit the property of father, more so, when the same is admittedly self acquired. So, I have no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance. ( K.C. Puri ) 29.9.2011 Judge chugh