RAVINDER SINGH SUR Vs. BALVINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 21.01.2016 after restoring of the suit, the issue arose with respect to maintainability of the suit in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Surender Kumar Vs. Dhani Ram and Ors., : 227 (2016) DLT 217 and hence by the Order dated 21.01.2016 plaintiff was accordingly put to notice as under:

(2.) A reading of the Order dated 21.01.2016 shows that on 21.01.2016 the matter was adjourned to 12.02.2016 making it clear that no adjournment shall be granted on the next date i.e 12.2.2016.

(3.) On 12.02.2016 however, no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and therefore, the matter was renotified for today in the interest of justice. Once again today, adjournment is sought on behalf of the plaintiff, and which is very strongly opposed by the defendant stating that this is harassment of the defendant because the suit as framed is not maintainable inasmuch as the plaintiff cannot claim a share in the properties which belonged to his grandfather Sh. Kartar Singh Sur inasmuch as the two defendants are the living sons of Sh. Kartar Singh Sur, with the defendant No. 2 being the father of the plaintiff. Defendants also drew the attention of this Court to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen and Others : (1986) 3 SCC 567 and Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar : (1987) 1 SCC 204 and which lay down a ratio that inheritance of ancestral property by a person after 1956 is inheritance as a self -acquired property and not as an HUF property. It is argued that in the present case, grandfather Sh. Kartar Singh Sur died in the year 2009 i.e after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and therefore, once the defendants who are the sons of Sh. Kartar Singh Sur are alive, a grandson being the plaintiff, son of defendant no.2 cannot claim any right in the suit properties belonging to Sh. Kartar Singh Sur.