NIHAL SINGH Vs. MATADEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned single judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 2.6.1982 in RSA No. 627 of 1992 dismissing the appeal as of no merit, thereby, affirming the judgment of the learned additional district judge, Narnol dated 5.2.1992 in Civil Appeal No. 58/1991, which, in-turn, has set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial judge dated 15.2.1991, resulting in the dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel for the respondent.

(3.) WHEN the decree was passed on 16.12.1977, it was in the form of a declaration that not only the plaintiff is the adopted son of Ram Chander, the deceased son of Dilbar, but he is also entitled to "his estate only and that he has no interest in the estate of Mukha", the other son of Dilbar. As per the further observation made therein that the decree passed in civil suit no. 338 of 1974 dated 11.9.1974 shall remain in force, the appellant perhaps wants to claim 1/6th as against 1/12th to which only he is really entitled to. In substance, the effect of the judgment in suit no. 338 of 1974 was to declare that he was entitled to the share of Ram Chander and in the light of the dispute and resultant compromise in the subsequent suit, what was agreed to between the parties and accepted by the present appellant himself by a statement, was that, he would be entitled only to the share of Ram Chander. It is not permissible for him to legally claim anything in excess thereof.