IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 530 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.5.2009 Kuldip Singh ...Appellants. Versus Sadhu Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for respondent No.5. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals being RSA Nos. 530 and 531 of 2000 as both arise from one and the common judgment dated 4.11.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, confirming that of the trial court dated 26.3.1996 whereby the civil suit filed by Sadhu Singh etc. for a decree for partition was decreed and the civil suit filed by Kuldip Singh (present appellant in both the appeals) for a decree for declaration was dismissed after consolidation of both the civil suits. Since common questions of facts are involved therein, for brevity, the facts are being taken from RSA No. 530 of 2000. In the first suit titled as “Sadhu Singh and others v. Kuldip Singh and another” the plaintiffs had sought a decree for partition of the properties, fully described in sub-headings (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the plaint, situated within the area of village Kakron, Tehsil and District R.S.A. No. 530 of 2000 -2- Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). In the second suit titled as “Kuldip Singh v. Smt. Dial Kaur and others”, the plaintiff had sought a decree for declaration to the effect that on the basis of last and valid Will dated 4.3.1989 of deceased Kartar Singh, he has become the exclusive owner in possession of the land measuring 40 kanals 2 marlas, fully described in the head note of the plaint and situated within the revenue estate of village Kakron, Tehsil and District Ropar (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”) and as a consequential relief, plaintiff Kuldip Singh had sought a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit land or alienating the same. The suit property of the first suit as well as the suit land of the second suit were earlier under the ownership and possession of deceased Kartar Singh, father of the plaintiffs and Kuldip Singh. Said Kartar Singh died intestate and after his death, the plaintiffs became owners to the extent of 5/6th share while the remaining 1/6th share devolved upon defendant-Kuldip Singh through inheritance and succession, all being class-I heirs of deceased Kartar Singh. As such, they through succession having become co-owners to the extent of said 5/6th shares in the suit property were joint owners in possession of the same. It was further pleaded that as there remained some disputes between the plaintiffs and Kuldip Singh regarding the enjoyment of the suit property, they requested him to divide the same and effect a partition qua their 5/6th share but to no effect and that gave rise to the plaintiffs for filing a suit for partition. To controvert the said suit filed by Sadhu Singh and others, R.S.A. No. 530 of 2000 -3- Kuldip Singh-defendant No.1 filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. He pleaded that on the basis of the last and valid Will dated 4.3.1989 executed by deceased Kartar Singh, he had become the exclusive owner in possession of the suit property as well as the suit land to the exclusion of said Sadhu Singh and others except his sister, Smt. Amar Kaur, as by virtue of the Will, they were left with no concern or connection with the same. Therefore, they did not have any share in the suit property as well as the suit land and as such could not be held entitled to claim partition qua the suit property. It was also pleaded that the suit for partition filed by Sadhu Singh and others was liable to be dismissed holding that the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in their favour was illegal and void whereas the suit filed by Kuldip Singh for declaration and permanent injunction deserved to be decreed restraining Sadhu Singh and others from interfering in his possession of the disputed land or alienating the same. Sadhu Singh and others through the written statement in the second suit as well as the replication in the first suit denied the allegations put forth by Kuldip Singh and pleaded that deceased Kartar Singh never executed any Will in his favour and as such they were joint owners in possession of the suit property and the suit land. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues in both the suits:- First Suit: “1. Whether plaintiffs have 5/6th share in the property in dispute? OPP 2. Whether suit is bad for partial partition? OPD R.S.A. No. 530 of 2000 -4- 3. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD 4. Relief.” Second Suit: “1. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD 2. Whether Kartar Singh executed a valid Will dated 4.3.1989 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration? OPP 4. Whether mutation No. 293 dated 27.2.1991 passed by ACI Grade, Ropar, is illegal and wrong? OPP 5. Relief.” The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led in both the suits, came to hold that Kuldip Singh had failed to establish the execution of the Will, Ex.D1, in his favour by deceased Kartar Singh and, therefore, he was not entitled to the decree for declaration as prayed for; and that Sadhu Singh and others had successfully established that Kartar Singh died intestate leaving behind his six successor-in-interests and, therefore, they were entitled to get 5/6th share on partition of the estate of said Kartar Singh and the remaining 1/6th share would go to their brother, Kuldip Singh and the mutation of natural succession No. 293 dated 27.2.1991 vide which the suit land was mutated in favour of Sadhu Singh etc. as well as Kuldip Singh equally was held to be legal, just and proper. Accordingly, the trial court vide common judgment and decree dated 26.3.1996 decreed the suit for partition filed by Sadhu Singh and others by passing a preliminary decree and dismissed the suit for declaration filed by Kuldip Singh. Feeling aggrieved, two appeals were filed by R.S.A. No. 530 of 2000 -5- Kuldip Singh. The lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.1999 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court in both the suits and dismissed the appeals. Hence, these two second appeals at the instance of said Kuldip Singh. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments with their assistance. The Courts below in view of the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced on record had come to the conclusion that the propounder of the Will, Ex.D1, had failed to establish its due execution by deceased Kartar Singh as the signatures of Kartar Singh on the same were not genuine signatures. It was concurrently held by the courts below that all the six legal heirs of deceased Kartar Singh had 1/6th share each in the suit property and Sadhu Singh and others were entitled to partition of the same and to get 5/6th share by way of natural succession. No error could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below which may warrant interference by this Court. There is no misreading and misappreciation of any evidence and, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from illegality or perversity. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arise in these appeals for determination of this Court Accordingly, finding no merit in both the appeals, the same are hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. May 5, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 531 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.5.2009 Kuldip Singh ...Appellant. Versus Jang Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for respondent No.5. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal is dismissed. For reasons, see separate judgment of even date recorded in RSA No. 530 of 2000 (Kuldip Singh Vs. Sadhu Singh and others). May 5, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE