RSA No.2979 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2979 of 2010 Date of Decision.15.12.2010 Rakesh son of Shri Subhash Chander resident of House No.513, Sector 23, Haryana Housing Board Colony, Faridabad ......Appellant Versus Subash Chander son of late Shri Tek Chand and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Pawan K. Mutneja, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff, who was successful at the trial but lost at the Appellate Court. In a claim to a share in the property, the defence by the father 1st defendant was that his father had bequeathed the property by virtue of a Will, under the terms of which the plaintiff had been disinherited and the beneficiary under the said Will was the 2nd defendant. Both the trial Court and Appellate Court found the Will to be not true. If the Will were not to be true and property was inherited by the 1st defendant from his father as on inter state succession, such property will be the separate property of the 1st defendant in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commr of Wealth Tax, Kanpur Vs. Chander Sen AIR 1986 SC 1753 and Yudhister Vs. Ashok Kumar 1987 SC 558. In such an event, the plaintiff, who claims to be RSA No.2979 of 2010 -2- a son born through the 1st defendant through the second wife shall not be entitled to press for any right during the life time of the father himself. 2. Learned counsel states that the Appellate court has held that the right of the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act will not avail to him at any time. This observation according to him would constitute obstruction to his claim to the property at any other time if the property were to fall to succession after the life time of the father. If the property were to belong to the 1st defendant even a claim by the plaintiff that he is entitled to a share by virtue of the operation of Section 16(3) during his life time, since it will still be spes successionis and and it gives no vested right for a person to make a claim. Any finding relating to the adjudication of Section 16(3) in the present suit or appeal will be inconsequential for I find that the plaintiff was liable to be non-suited on the only ground that the plaintiff cannot have a share or claim to any right to the property during the life time of the father of the 1st defendant. I clarify, therefore, the issue of the plaintiff's entitlement under Section 16(3) is not an issue that is relevant for the present and the suit is liable for dismissal on the ground that the plaintiff does not have a subsisting interest in the property during the life time of the father. 3. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 15, 2010 Pankaj*