KARAMJIT KAUR Vs. MEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon death of one Kashmir Singh his son Bija Singh inherited his estate which comprises of the suit property detailed in the plaint which need not be reflected here. Undisputedly, Bija Singh upon his death in the year 1981 left behind four sons (defendants No. 1 to 4) and a daughter (present plaintiff/appellant). The present dispute between the siblings revolves around the estate of Bija Singh. Prior to his death, it is claimed by the defendants that Bija Singh executed a valid registered Will dtd. 12/9/1977 (Ex.DW1/B) leading to sanction of mutation dtd. 7/1/99 by AC (I) Mohali (Ex.D1). Moreover in a Civil Suit No. 27 judgment and decree dtd. 17/4/79 has been passed by the Civil Court on the basis of alleged Family Settlement made in June 1978. Furthermore, it is claimed by the sons that consequence upon a suit filed by the sons Harpal Singh and Surjit Singh both defendants against their father Bija Singh a consent decree dtd. 17/4/1979 was passed by the Civil Court (Ex.P4). Aggrieved over this denial of a legitimate right to the estate of her father, the plaintiff has knocked at the doors of the Civil Court seeking a suit for declaration that the judgment and decree dtd. 17/4/79 alleged to have been suffered by Bija Singh in favour of the sons was a collusive and does not affect the rights of the daughter and has further lay challenge to the registered Will dtd. 12/9/1977 claiming to be an outcome of fraud and coercion which does not binds the plaintiff and, therefore, claimed that she was entitled to 1/5th share of the entire estate left by Bija Singh, her father. The Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) SAS Nagar Mohali vide judgment dtd. 26/5/2014 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff pronouncing that the plaintiff was entitled to joint possession and declaration of 1/25th share in the suit property and an order of restraint by way of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from denying the share of the plaintiff in the suit property holding out that judgment and decree dtd. 17/4/79 as well as registered Will dtd. 12/9/77 are ineffective and inoperative and had no impact on the rights of the plaintiff. Aggrieved over these findings, three different appeals have come about under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Sec. 96 CPC against this judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). Civil Appeal No. RT47/2/7/14/9/7/2017 is by the plaintiff Karamjit Kaur challenging the findings whereby her suit has only been partly decreed and another Civil Appeal No. RT/36/2/7/14/9/2/2017 by her brother Mehar Singh and third Civil Appeal No.RT37/2/7/2014/.9/2/2017 by other brothers Harpal Singh who accidentally has since died and his LRs comprising his widow and two sons and a daughter have also challenged these findings of the learned trial Court. The Court of learned Additional District Judge SAS Nagar Mohali through impugned findings dtd. 11/9/2017 by a common judgment disposed of these three respective appeals whereby holding that Karammit Kaur was not entitled to any share in the estate of her father and thereby while allowing the appeals of the brothers and the heirs has dismissed that of the original plaintiff/appellant Karamjit Kaur. It is in the background of this ding dong battle between the siblings, the aggrieved daughter has come in this Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) Heard Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1, Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for LRs. of respondent No.2 and Mr. Sapan Dhir, advocate for respondent No. 3 and perused the records. In the light of admitted legal proposition as has been laid down in 'Kirodi (since deceased) through his LR Vs. Ram Parkash & others' Civil appeal No. 4988 of 2019; SLP(C) No. 11527 of 2019 decided on 10/5/2019, the Court is not supposed to frame substantial questions of law in view of the provisions enshrined under Sec. 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 which has its application to the States of Punjab and Haryana.

(3.) From the arguments addressed at length by the respective counsel for the parties and what has reflected from the records of the case, it is by no means put to question as to the fact that Bija Singh had inherited the suit property from his deceased father Kashmir Singh and further that Bija Singh upon his death at the age above 85 years left behind his four sons, namely, Mehar Singh, Harpal Singh, Dhanwant Singh and Surjit Singh (mentioned as Surjan Singh in memo of parties of RSA filed before this Court) and one daughter Karamjit Kaur who all at that time were major. The claim and counter claim of the parties is over the registered Will dtd. 12/9/77, judgment and decree dtd. 17/4/79 and consequently entitlement of respective shares of the litigants to this lis. The factum of these claims and counter claims have come about by the testimony of the plaintiff herself as PW1 and by examining PW2 Dhanwant Singh and PW3 Surjeet Singh while on the other hand defendants examined DW1 Sardool Singh, defendant Mehar Singh himself as DW2, DW3 Sukhdarshan Singh, DW4 S.K. Attri Advocate and DW5 Jitender Kumar, record keeper.