IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4626 of 2008 Date of decision : December 21, 2009 Sinderpal Singh and another ....Petitioners versus Jagjit Singh and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. BS Bedi, Advocate, for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by legal representatives of Malan original plaintiff since deceased. Malan had executed two gift deeds of her property, one in favour of Rattan Singh and another in favour of Pritam Singh regarding half share each. Malan filed civil suit challenging the said gift deeds. In RSA No. 840 of 1961 filed by Rattan Singh, following judgment dated 3.8.1962 Annexure P/1 was passed on the basis of compromise effected between the parties:- “In terms of compromise the appeal is allowed to this extent that during the life time of Smt. Malan the appellant will have no claim to the gifted property. He will be entitled to succeed to one half of her property i.e. land minus the house property on her death, provided he does not forfeit his right of succession by causing death, grievous hurt or other bodily harm Civil Revision No. 4626 of 2008 -2- to Smt. Malan, which, of course, shall have to be established in a competent court of law. Smt. Malan will not create any charge or alienate, in any way, one half of the property which will go to the appellant during her life time. There will be no order as to costs”. Rattan Singh has since died and has been succeeded by defendants/respondents who are his sons. Malan filed suit against the respondents seeking declaration that she had become owner in possession of 44 bighas 7 biswas of land being half share of the land which was involved in previous litigation on the ground that Rattan Singh had predeceased her and therefore, judgment dated 3.8.1962, Annexure P/1, passed by this Court has been rendered redundant. The plaintiff Malan also claimed temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing her from the suit land except in due course of law till final decision of the suit. Learned trial court vide order dated 1.12.2006, Annexure P/5, allowed the stay application. However, in appeal preferred by the respondent herein, learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide impugned judgment dated 19.8.2008, Annexure P/6 allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction order Annexure P/5 granted by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, legal heirs of the original plaintiff have filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that judgment Annexure P/1 of this Court passed in RSA No. 840 of 1961 has Civil Revision No. 4626 of 2008 -3- been rendered infructuous because Rattan Singh predeceased Malan. However, this contention cannot be accepted at this stage. Since Rattan Singh was to succeed to half share of the property of Malan (exclusing the house) after her death, in the event of death of Rattan Singh prior to death of Malan, it cannot be prima facie said that judgment Annexure P/1 has been rendered infructuous. The property on the death of Malan would prima facie devolve to the heirs of Rattan Singh who if alive would have got the same pursuant to judgment Annexure P/1. In this view of the matter, prima facie the petitioners have no right to continue in possession of the suit land. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, it is expressly made clear that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the suit. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 21, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'