R. S. A. No. 2171 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2171 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : June 02, 2011 Balbir Singh and others .... Appellants Vs. Sarabjit Kaur .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. H. S. Batth, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 6015-C of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : This is second appeal by plaintiffs, who have been non-suited by the courts below. Plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are parents of Satnam Singh (since deceased), whereas plaintiffs no.3 and 4 are minor son and minor daughter respectively of the deceased. Defendant-respondent Sarabjit Kaur was R. S. A. No. 2171 of 2011 (O&M) 2 married with Satnam Singh and out of this wedlock, plaintiffs no.3 and 4 were born. Plaintiffs' case is that the defendant-respondent neglected plaintiffs no.3 and 4 and contracted second marriage with Sewak Singh during lifetime of Satnam Singh, who died on 16.02.2004. Inheritance mutation of Satnam Singh had been sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs no.2 to 4 and defendant. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, having contracted second marriage during lifetime of Satnam Singh and having neglected plaintiffs no.3 and 4, has no right, title or concern with inheritance of property of the deceased. It was also pleaded that suit land was purchased by plaintiff no.1 by paying huge consideration and the deceased did not spend even single penny for purchase of the suit land. However, inheritance mutation of Satnam Singh has been sanctioned. Defendant is not entitled to any share in the property of the deceased. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought declaration that plaintiffs no.2 and 3 are owners in possession of the suit land i.e. half share in 45 kanals 19 marlas land and mutation no. 6525 regarding inheritance of Satnam Singh in favour of defendant is illegal and null and void, sanctioned without notice to plaintiffs no.2 and 3 and is, therefore, not binding on them. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also claimed. The defendant broadly denied the plaint averments. It was pleaded that the defendant has inherited the suit land from her deceased R. S. A. No. 2171 of 2011 (O&M) 3 husband Satnam Singh and mutation no. 6525 has been rightly sanctioned in her favour. It was alleged that plaintiffs have no right, title or concern with the suit property. However, relationship of the parties with the deceased was admitted. The defendant alleged that she married Sewak Singh after the death of Satnam Singh. It was denied that defendant neglected plaintiffs no.3 and 4 or married with Sewak Singh during lifetime of Satnam Singh. It was alleged that defendant is entitled to inherit the estate of Satnam Singh being his widow. Accordingly, defendant claimed to be owner in possession of the suit land. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patti, vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2008, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, vide judgment and decree dated 08.03.2011. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. It is admitted case of the plaintiffs that defendant was married with Satnam Singh and out of this wedlock, plaintiffs no.3 and 4 were born. Plaintiffs' case is that defendant is not entitled to inherit the estate of Satnam Singh because defendant had married Sewak Singh during lifetime of Satnam Singh and also because defendant had neglected her minor issues i.e. plaintiffs no.3 and 4. However, even if this factual position is assumed R. S. A. No. 2171 of 2011 (O&M) 4 to be correct for the sake of argument, even then, the defendant being widow of Satnam Singh would be one of his Class I legal heirs along with plaintiffs no.2 to 4. Alleged second marriage of defendant with Sewak Singh during the lifetime of Satnam Singh would be null and void. Consequently, defendant continued to be wife of Satnam Singh till his death and as such, the defendant is one of his Class I legal heirs. Defendant also can not be disinherited on the ground that she allegedly neglected minor plaintiffs no.3 and 4. On the contrary, in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the defendant, being one of the Class I heirs of the deceased Satnam Singh, is entitled to inherit his estate accordingly. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the plaintiffs came out with a new version that there was Panchayati divorce of defendant with Satnam Singh. Contention to this effect has also been raised by learned counsel for the appellants. It was accordingly submitted that in view of said divorce, defendant is not entitled to inherit the estate of Satnam Singh. However, the contention cannot be accepted. The contention is completely beyond pleadings, and therefore, cannot be allowed to be raised. Secondly, the contention is also not substantiated by any cogent evidence on record. There is only oral evidence regarding alleged divorce in Panchayat. However, the said oral evidence does not prove the alleged divorce. Moreover, there could be no valid divorce except through the Court under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Admittedly, marriage of R. S. A. No. 2171 of 2011 (O&M) 5 defendant with Satnam Singh was never dissolved or annulled by any decree of the Court. Consequently, the contention, that marriage of defendant with Satnam Singh stood dissolved or annulled by Panchayati divorce, cannot be accepted. It may also be added that even plaintiffs' witness Niranjan Singh (PW-6) admitted that defendant and Satnam Singh had not obtained any decree of divorce from any Court nor the deceased Satnam Singh had ever filed any case against the defendant complaining solemnization of second marriage by the defendant. He also admitted that no divorce had taken place between defendant and Satnam Singh. Similarly, Narang Singh (PW-4) stated in cross-examination that no divorce took place between the deceased and the defendant. He also admitted that marriage of defendant with Sewak Singh was not solemnized in his presence. Narang Singh stated that he did not know about the said second marriage of the defendant. Similarly, Balbir Singh – plaintiff no.1 as PW-5 admitted that he had not seen the solemnization of second marriage of defendant. He also admitted that his son Satnam Singh had not obtained any divorce from the defendant from any Court. It is thus evident that no legal or valid divorce ever took place between the deceased Satnam Singh and the defendant, and therefore, the defendant continued to be wife of Satnam Singh till his death and as such, is entitled to inherit his estate as one of his Class I legal heirs. It may be mentioned that learned counsel for the appellants stated that R. S. A. No. 2171 of 2011 (O&M) 6 inheritance mutation of Satnam Singh has been sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs no.2 to 4 and defendant in equal shares. They are the only Class I legal heirs of Satnam Singh, and therefore, inheritance mutation has been rightly sanctioned in their favour including the defendant. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below non-suiting the plaintiffs is fully justified by the evidence on record as well as by the admitted factual position. Even taking plaint averments to be at face value, the defendant could not be disinherited from the estate of Satnam Singh as one of his Class I legal heirs. The finding recorded by the courts below is not shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. In fact, no other finding could be arrived at on the basis of evidence on record. Consequently, finding recorded by the courts below does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. June 02, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE