RAJINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER Vs. SHAKUNTLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal against order has been filed by defendants No.1 and 2 against the judgment dated 25.7.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14.8.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Rupnagar was disposed of and the case was remanded to the trial Court with a direction to decide the suit afresh by giving opportunities to both the parties to lead evidence on additional issues No.3-A and 3-B framed by the Court.

(2.) Plaintiff Shakuntla Devi filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that her son Paramjit Singh was married to defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is the daughter of defendant No.1 born from the wedlock of Rajinder Kaurdefendant No.1 and Paramjit Singh- deceased. Paramjit Singh died on 11.9.2005 and was having strained relations with his wife-defendant No.1. Deceased Paramjit Singh had purchased number of insurance policies from defendants No.3 and 4 and also purchased a plot No.579, Phase-3-A, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and was raising construction thereon. The funds being utilized for the said construction were joint of the deceased, son of the plaintiff, his father Jagat Singh and and younger brother. The house and plot were joint properties of the family. Plaintiff being mother and legal heir of Paramjit Singh was entitled to inherit the property as per her share in the estate left by the deceased and also a share in the sum assured with defendants No.3 and 4 and in the bank account left by the deceased. The deceased had also raised a loan from the bank for raising construction and had also left other liabilities of more than Rs. 20,00,000/-. Defendants No.1 and 2 were liable to share the amount of liabilities proportionally with the plaintiff. Defendants No.1 and 2 had taken hasty steps to receive all the amount of sum assured from defendants No.3 and 4 and also to dispose of the house in Mohali, which ultimately prompted the plaintiff to file the suit in question.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants No.1 and 2 on all customary pleas. Defendants alleged that the plaintiff and her husband tried to create differences between defendant No.1 and her husband and they always used to instigate Paramjit Singh to ill treat defendant No.1 and her daughter. They encouraged Paramjit Singh to take liquor and had also taken away the policies with intention to deprive defendant no.1 of the benefit of those policies. The construction of house in Mohali was admitted. Defendant No.1 had also invested her savings and her husband had sold residential plot at Jalandhar to meet the expenses of construction.