LAWS(P&H)-2015-12-538

PRITAM SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

Decided On December 21, 2015
PRITAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
Mohinder Singh and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the parties are ad idem that instead of pondering upon the application seeking vacation of stay, which was granted, while admitting the appeal, the appeal be heard on merits. This order of mine shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA No.201 of 2015 and 1286 of 2015. Mohinder Singh, Mota Singh, Swaran Singh sons of Ishar Singh Uncle of Pritam Singh brother of Ishar Singh sought declaration that they are joint owners in possession of land to the extent of 3/4th share and defendant No.1 to the extent of 1/4th share in the estate of Ishar Singh in respect of the property mentioned in the head note of the plaint and also challenged the exchange allegedly executed by Charan Kaur widow of Ishar Singh in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6, the sale deed executed on 3.10.2000 by defendant Nos. 3 to 6 in favour of defendant No.7 and sale deed dated 31.1.2003 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.8 with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. The appellants are none else but the defendants i.e. defendant No.2 in

(2.) Mr. Puneet Jindal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Parmbir Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of appellantdefendant No.2 in RSA No. 201 of 2015 submits that Ishar Singh owned a land of 146 Kanals 9 Marlas. During his life time he executed a Will dated 3.4.1984 vide which he bequeathed the entire property situated in different villages in favour of his wife but put a rider, that during his life time he would be the owner and after his death her wife would be the owner of the property with a further rider that she would not alienate the property.

(3.) He further submits that though, as per provisions of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Charan Kaur had become absolute owner, therefore, she could deal with the property in any manner she wanted to. No pre judice or loss had been caused to the respondents-plaintiffs as the total area of land remains same, even after exchange.