DALJEET SINGH Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to the order of the trial Court dated November 8, 1990, whereby the defendant-petitioners' prayer for amendment of the written statement to raise a plea that they are government in matters of inheritance/success on by the Punjab Customary Law, has been disallowed on the ground that firstly, the petition has been made at a very belated stage, i.e. when the case is ripe for arguments and secondly, the amendment. if allowed, is likely to cause an irreparable injury to the plaintiff respondent as the petitioners now want to raise altogether a new and inconsistent plea thereby completely displacing their admissions made so far, Briefly the facts are as follows.

(2.) Balwant Singh, the present respondent, filed the present suit to seek a declaration to the effect that the suit properties are joint Hindu family properties belonging to him and defendants Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., his father and brother. He also prayed that the decree in Civil Suit No 111 dated 21.4.1984 Daljeet Singh v Gurdial Singh and others decided on 7.9.1984, be declared as null and void being collusive, vague and contrary to the interest of the joint family referred to above. That suit had indisputably been filed by Daljeet Singh, now defendant No. 1, son of defendant No. 3, Jaswant Singh. It is again the undisputed petition that this decree, as is also evident from the copy of the judgment on the records of the lower Court as Exhibit P 1, had been granted of the plea/ground that the parties, i.e. the plain if and the defendants in the instant case were governed by Hindu Law and the suit property was a joint Hindu family/coparcenary property.

(3.) Having heard the heard the learned counsel at some length, I fully concur with the conclusions of the trial Court. As a matter of fact Mr. Merchea, learned counsel for the petitioners has hardly anything to dislodge the above noted two conclusions of the lower Court except to refer to the following observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Darshan Singh v. Ram Pal Singh & another, 1990 4 JT 561," the Hindu Succession Act does not appear to have abrogated any rule or customary law in Punjab relating to restrictions on ali nation by a male proprietor over and above what could be done under Hindu Law" He thus urges that he is entitled to take the above noted plea and, therefore, amendment should be allowed Be that as it may the fact remains that the petitioners have contested the suit all through in the absence of any plea under the customary law and on the contrary, one of them, namely, Daljeet Singh had obtained an earlier decree against his co-defendant on a similar plea that the parties were governed by Hindu law and the properties in dispute were joint Hindu family/coparcenary properties. Therefore, this petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs.