R.S.A. No. 1341 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1341 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.03.2009 Pritpal Singh ....Appellant Versus Inderjit Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 10.12.2007 and 2.12.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant to challenge the sale deed executed by his father in favour of other son has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff challenged the sale deed primarily on the ground that the property was coparcenary Joint Hindu Family property and, therefore, his right could not be affected by way of sale deed executed by Gurdeep Singh in favour of his son Harsimran Singh defendant No. 5. The suit was filed during the lifetime of Gurdeep Singh, who contested the suit. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the property was not ancestral in hands of Gurdeep Singh, as the same was inherited by him from his father under the 'Will' and not by way of inheritence, therefore, could not be said to be Joint Hindu R.S.A. No. 1341 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Family property to give locus to the plaintiff/appellant to challenge the sale deed or the 'Will' executed by Gurdeep Singh in favour of respondent No. 5. Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, learned counsel appearing in behalf of the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - “1. Whether the character of the ancestral property could be changed merely by way of execution of a 'Will'? 2. Whether the learned Courts below were bound to consider the convenants in the 'Will' to find out intention of the executor of the 'Will' to form an opinion whether the property was ancestral in the hands of Gurdeep Singh or not?” The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in this case, the father of Gurdeep Singh executed a 'Will' in favour of all of his sons, which they were otherwise entitled to inherit even if there was no 'Will' executed by him and, thus, character of the property could not change. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, is that the learned Courts below committed an error in law in treating it to be self-acquired property. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Valliammai Achi Vs. Nagappa Chettiar and another, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1153. However, on consideration of matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in dispute that it was self-acquired property by father of Gurdeep Singh, who 'Willed' it in favour of his son, therefore, the learned Courts below were right in holding that as the property was inherited by Gurdeep Singh under 'Will', it could not be said to be ancestral Joint Hindu R.S.A. No. 1341 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Family property giving right to the plaintiff/appellant in the suit property to challenge the sale deed. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that it was incumbent upon the Court to have considered the ingredients of 'Will' in order to form an opinion whether under the 'Will', the property was bequeathed without any stipulation contained therein. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ram Parkash s/o Ch. Raghbir Singh Vs. Radhe Shyam and others, AIR 1963 Punjab 338, to contend that the Court is required to collect the intention from the language of document taken along with surrounding circumstances to give reasonable conclusion to 'Will'. The plea raised is that reading of 'Will' would show that it continued to be ancestral property. However, this contention is totally mis-conceived, as in the 'Will' the property was bequeathed to Gurdeep Singh absolutely without any interference of any third party. The property was inherited by Gurdeep Singh as an absolute owner thereof, and he had every right to dispose it of the way he wishes to do so. No other interpretation is possible from reading of the 'Will'. The substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 26, 2009 R.S.