HARPAL SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants, regular second appeal, who failed in their defence in a suit brought about by Mohinder Singh-plaintiff for declaration of his rights.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, Mohinder Singh plaintiff averred in his plaint that he, Malkiat Singh and Gurdhian Singh, being members of coparcenary, formed by them inter se, were owners to the extent of 1/3rd share with all rights attached to land measuring 42 kanals 6-1/2 marlas out of land measuring 126 kanals 19-1/2 marlas. He further stated that he was individual owner of 1/15th share with all rights in land measuring 8 Kanals 6-1/2 marlas out of land measuring 126 kanals 19-1/2 marlas fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. He, thus, prayed for a decree for declaration that he be held entitled to get his share recorded in the revenue records by correction or mutation. Plaintiff and Harpal Singh defendant are the sons of Dharam Singh who was son of Harnam Singh. Punjab Kaur is their mother and Jaswant Kaur and Mohinder Kaur are their sisters. Gejja Singh is their uncle and Malkiat Singh and Gurdhian Singh defendants are his sons whereas Sukhdev Singh and Gurmukh Singh are the sons of Harpal Singh defendant. All of them, it is pleaded, are Jat Sikhs and as such are governed by Hindu Law and Hindu Succession Act in the matters of succession. Dharam Singh who died about three years back, was a member of the Joint Hindu Family. He was karta and the land in dispute was their coparcenary property. On his death, his share in the coparcenary property is to be worked out through notional partition as he also left behind his widow and daughters. Under this notional partition, he was entitled to 1/3rd share at the time of his death whereas he and Harpal Singh defendant were entitled to 1/3rd share each as representatives of their respective coparcenary. 1/3rd share of Dharam Singh shall be inherited by him, Harpal Singh, Jaswant Kaur, Mohinder Kaur and Punjab Kaur defendants in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act. All of them have got 1/5th share out of 1/3rd share of Dharam Singh. Thus, he became the separate owner of 1/15th share also. Similarly, Harpal Singh, Punjab Kaur, Jaswant Kaur and Mohinder Kaur became owners of 1/15th share each out of the land in dispute measuring 126 kanals 19-1/2 marlas. This notional partition ought to have been resorted to as required by the Hindu Succession Act. After the death of Dharam Singh afore-said shares of coparceners and his other relations have been quantified and defined and they have become co-sharers in the property in dispute. The mutation in respect of the land was wrongly sanctioned by the revenue authorities presuming that Dharam Singh was owner of this land whereas in fact the suit land was ancestral and coparcenary property of the parties having descended upon Dharam Singh from his ancestors. It is from the facts, as stated above, that plaintiff challenged the mutation proceedings and asserted his right to the extent as described above.

(3.) THE trial Court decree dated 24.11.1982 has since been affirmed in appeal. Hence, the present regular second appeal.