C.R. No. 329 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 329 of 2004 Date of Decision: 14.09.2009 1. Lt. Col Vikramjit Singh son of Brig. Ujagar Singh, r/o C-142, Defence Colony, New Delhi. 2. Avninder Singh son of Brig. Ujagar Singh, r/o C-142, Defence Colony, New Delhi. (legal heirs of Smt. Daya Kaur, deceased) ... Revision-Petitioners Versus 1. Pal Singh s/o Naginder Singh s/o Balwant Singh, r/o village Baloke, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. 2. Naginder Singh, son of Balwant Singh, r/o village Baloke, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. 3. Gurpreet Singh, son of Avtar Singh, r/o 2555, Phase II, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana. 4. Avtar Singh son of Major Prem Singh, r/o 347-A, Model Town, Extension II, Ludhiana (now dead). 5. Brig. Ujagar Singh son of Major Prem Singh, resident of C-142, Defence Colony, New Delhi. 6. Jaswant Kaur d/o Major Prem Singh, wife of Inder Singh Rekhi, r/o 4/2, Ganga Road, Jalandhar Cant. 7. Surjit Singh s/o Partap Singh, r/o 97/1, Arjan Nagar, Patiala. 8. Agya Kaur widow of Narinder Singh son of Sangat Singh, resident of village Bonkar, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. 9. Harvinder Singh son of Sangat Singh, resident of village Bonkar, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. ...Respondents C.R. No. 329 of 2004 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. S.C. Batta, Advocate, for the revision-petitioners. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Anupam Sharma, Advocate, & Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Respondents No. 4, 6 and 7, since demised. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 18.11.03, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which, it allowed the application, filed by Gurpreet Singh, defendant No. 3/respondent, on the ground that, after the death of Daya Kaur, deceased, who was only having a life interest, in the property, in dispute, cause of action, did not survive, in favour of the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, namely Vikramjit Singh and Avninder Singh. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, Major Prem Singh, was the husband of Daya Kaur, since deceased. He executed a registered Will, dated 25.08.89, vide which, five acres of land, was given to Gurpreet Singh, defendant No. 3, and the remaining 13 acres of land, alongwith farm house, taur, tractor trolley, related implements etc. etc., were given, to Daya Kaur. Under the Will, Daya Kaur, was having only life interest, in the property, in dispute. After the death of Major Prem Singh, mutation of inheritance of his estate, was sanctioned, in favour of Daya Kaur and Gurpreet Kaur, as per C.R. No. 329 of 2004 3 the recitals of the Will. Defendant No. 3, got executed four sale deeds, in respect of the property, in dispute, in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, by impersonating and without any authority from Daya Kaur. These sale deeds, were challenged by Daya Kaur, as illegal, void and inoperative against her rights. 3. During the pendency of the suit, Daya Kaur, died, and an application, was moved by defendants No. 6 and 7/revision-petitioners, for transposing them, as plaintiffs, in her place. That application, was allowed, by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide order dated 20.03.99. 4. Later on, an application, was moved by Gurpreet Singh, defendant No. 3/respondent, for dismissal of the suit, on the ground that, since Daya Kaur, was only having life interest, in the property, in dispute, as per the Will, after her death, no cause of action survived, in favour of the transposed plaintiffs, and the suit, be dismissed. That application, was allowed, by the trial Court, vide order dated 18.11.03. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that, once on the death of Daya Kaur, an application, was moved, by defendants No. 6 and 7, for their transposition, as plaintiffs, in her place, and the same, was allowed, vide order dated 20.03.99, it could not be said that, no cause of action survived, in their favour to continue the suit. He further submitted that Daya Kaur, being widow, had a right of maintenance i.e. pre-existing right and, even if, life interest, was allegedly given to her, she became the C.R. No. 329 of 2004 4 full-fledged owner thereof in view of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He also placed reliance on V. Tulasamma and others Vs. Sesha Reddy (dead) by LRs, (1977) 3, SCC, 99, in support of his contention. He further submitted that, even, in the written statement, the defendants, admitted that Daya Kaur, was the full-fledged owner of the property inherited by her, on the basis of Will aforesaid. He further submitted that, in view of the admission, made by the defendants, in the written statement, that Daya Kaur, was the owner in possession of the property, in dispute, they could not be allowed to wriggle out of same (admission). He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, since only life interest, was created, in favour of Daya Kaur, vide the Will, in question, after her death, no cause of action survived to the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners. He further submitted that the trial Court, was right, in allowing the application for dismissal of the suit. He further submitted that the order, being legal and valid, was liable to be upheld. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The interpretation of the Will, as to whether, life interest, was given to Daya Kaur, in the property, or she became the full-fledged owner thereof, as she had a right of maintenance, i.e. pre-existing right, was required to be made, at the final decision of the case. For the purpose of deciding the application, the trial Court, could not conclusively say, as to whether, it was life interest which was created, in favour of Daya Kaur, or she had become the full-fledged owner of the property, on the basis of Will. C.R. No. 329 of 2004 5 Once, the application for transposing defendants No. 6 and 7, as plaintiffs, on the death of Daya Kaur, was allowed, vide order dated 20.03.99, at the subsequent stage, the Court could not hold, that the suit, was liable to be dismissed, as no cause of action survived in favour of the plaintiffs/revision- petitioners. Even in para No. 4 of the written statement, it was stated by the defendants, that it was wrong, that under Will, Daya Kaur, had only life interest, in the property, in dispute. Again in para No. 6 (a) of their written statement, the defendants stated that, it was wrong and denied, that the plaintiff Daya Kaur (deceased), had only life estate/interest, in the property, in dispute, and, was not competent to alienate the same. It was further admitted in the written statement that she had every right to alienate the suit property, and she sold the same, on the basis of the valid revenue record. Had only the life estate been created, in favour of Daya Kaur, then the defendants/respondents would not have made the aforesaid admissions, in the written statement. The trial Court, was, thus, wrong in holding that, no cause of action survived in favour of the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners to continue the suit. The trial Court, thus, illegally dismissed the suit. The order, rendered by the trial Court, suffers from illegality, and perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same is liable to be set aside. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is accepted. The order dated 18.11.03, rendered by the Court below, is set aside. The parties, are directed to appear, in the trial Court, on 14.10.09, at 10.00 AM, for further proceedings. 14.09.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE