R.S.A.No. No. 3500 of 2007(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. No. 3500 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision:August 21, 2009 Sukhpal Kaur ---Appellant versus Gurdial Kaur and others ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Ms. Sonia G.Singh Samber, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Ravish Bansal, Advocate, for Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the respondents *** SABINA J. Plaintiffs – Gurdial Kaur and others had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division),Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 5.11.2004 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 17.8.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. R.S.A.No. No. 3500 of 2007(O&M) {2} The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “The plaintiffs had instituted the suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit property and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property on the averments that Natha Singh was the owner in possession of the suit property, who died on 20.9.2001. The plaintiff No. 1 is the widow and plaintiffs No. 2 to 6 are the daughters of the deceased. They are natural heirs of the deceased and after the death of Natha Singh, they have become co-owners in equal shares in the suit property. The mother of Natha Singh pre-deceased him and there is no other natural heir of the deceased. Natha Singh had a son namely Buta Singh, who died during the his life time in the year 1979. The defendant was the wife of Buta Singh. After the death of Buta Singh, the defendant solemnized marriage with Gulzara Singh in the year 1981 and is residing in his house as his wife. Three daughters namely Antpal Kaur, Rajvir Kaur and Mandeep Kaur were born to defendant out of her wedlock with Gulzara Singh. After the solemnization of her marriage, the defendant ceased to have any right to inherit the estate of Natha Singh deceased. The defendant got the mutation sanctioned with regard to the estate of Natha Singh in connivance with the revenue authorities depicting her to be the co-owner in possession of the 1/3rd share in the suit property. The mutation has been alleged to be illegal, null and void. R.S.A.No. No. 3500 of 2007(O&M) {3} 3. In pursuance of the notice of the suit, the defendant appeared and through the written statement, she has raised preliminary objections disputing the maintainability of the suit. It has been alleged that the defendant is co-owner in possession to the extent of 1/7th share in the suit property. The locus standi of the plaintiffs to institute the suit has also been disputed. On merits, it has been admitted that Natha Singh was the owner of the suit property, who died on 20.9.2001. It has not been disputed that the plaintiff No. 1 is the widow and plaintiffs No. 2 to 6 are the daughters of the deceased. It has been denied that the plaintiffs alone are the natural heirs of the deceased or are owners in possession of the suit property. It has not been disputed that the mother of Natha Singh had pre- deceased him. After the death of Natha Singh, the defendant being his daughter-in-law has become co-owner in possession to the extent of 1/7th share. It has not been disputed that Buta Singh has died in the year 1979. It has been denied that the defendant is having the relations of husband and wife with Gulzara Singh. It has been denied that the marriage of defendant was solemnized with Gulzara Singh. It has been alleged that Gulzara Singh is the nephew of plaintiff No. 1. After the death of husband of defendant, the plaintiff No. 1 and Natha Singh brought Gulzara Singh to their house to look after their land and since then, he is residing with them. The mutation has been legally and validly sanctioned. The other material averments raised by the plaintiffs have been R.S.A.No. No. 3500 of 2007(O&M) {4} controverted.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the defendant, who is daughter -in-law of deceased Natha Singh had re-married with Gulzara Singh during the life time of Natha Singh in the year 1981? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP (3)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP (4)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (5)Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? (6)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of nay merit. Admittedly, Natha Singh was owner of the property in dispute. Defendant-Sukhpal Kaur was married to Buta Singh son of Natha Singh. Buta Singh died in the year 1979. The case of the plaintiffs was that they are widow and daughters of Natha Singh. Sukhpal Kaur after the death of Buta Singh had got married to Gulzara Singh in the year 1981. Admittedly, Natha Singh died on 20.9.2001. The question that requires consideration in this case is as to whether the defendant had got married to Gulzara Singh before the opening of succession of Natha Singh or thereafter. In the present case, Buta Singh son of Natha Singh has pre-deceased his father. R.S.A.No. No. 3500 of 2007(O&M) {5} Succession of Natha Singh opened on his death on 20.9.2001. Plaintiffs, in order to establish that defendant had got married to Gulzara Singh before the opening of succession had examined PW-1-Sanjiv Kumar to prove on record the admission register of three daughters of defendant born to her out of her wedlock with Gulzara Singh. A perusal of Exs. P-4 to P-6 reveals that Antpal Kaur, Rajvir Kaur and Mandeep Kaur are daughters of Gulzara Singh. Defendant while appearing in the witness box as PW-5, in her cross examination had admitted that three daughters namely, Antpal Kaur, Rajvir Kaur and Mandeep Kaur were born to her and Gulzara Singh. As per Ex. P-1, date of birth of Antpal Kaur is 15.1.1982. As per Ex. P-2 date of birth of Rajvir Kaur is 10.5.1983 and as per Ex. P-3 date of birth of Mandeep Kaur is 15.5.1988. From the said documentary evidence as well as the admission made by the defendant, there is force in the plea taken by the plaintiffs that the defendant had got re-married to Gulzara Singh in the year 1981, after the death of Buta Singh son of Natha Singh. Another material document proved on record by the plaintiffs is Ex. P-8. As per the said document, Natha Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of Gulzara Singh and defendant describing her as wife of Gulzara Singh with regard to 23 kanals-18 marlas of land. The said sale deed is dated 3.4.1981. This also substantiates the plea of the plaintiffs that the defendant had got married to Gulzara Singh in the year 1981. Defendant showed her ignorance with regard to the execution of the sale deed in her cross examination but had not specifically denied the execution of the sale deed. Rather she has deposed in her cross examination that it was quite possible that the registered sale deed might have been executed with regard to 23 Kanals – 18 marlas of land. Both the courts below after appreciating the R.S.A.No. No. 3500 of 2007(O&M) {6} evidence on record have given a finding of fact that the defendant had got re-married to Gulzara Singh before the opening of succession of Natha Singh. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 21, 2009 PARAMJIT