AMARJEET SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it would be relevant to refer to the pedigree table as the parties to the lis are closely related. The pedigree table reads as under :

(2.) IN brief, the common ancestor Tehal Singh was stated to have died intestate. After his death, he was succeeded by his two sons, daughter and a widow to the extent of 1/4th share each. Harpinder Singh filed a civil suit No.479/1991 against Kirpal Singh, Gurdayal Singh and Laj Kaur, all the other three heirs of Tehal Singh, in which his wife Gurdip Kaur appeared on behalf of Harpinder Singh and Laj Kaur on the basis of a power of attorney but was not having any power of attorney of Dr.Kirpal Singh. She suffered a statement in favour of her husband and as a result thereof, suit filed by him was decreed on 20.7.1991. The said decree was challenged by Kirpal Singh and Gurdial Singh in a separate suit on the ground of fraud and impersonation. Suit was decreed on 31.10.2006. The said judgment and decree has attained finality as the second appeal bearing RSA No.3463 of 2010 filed by the defendants therein was dismissed by this Court. The plaintiff in the decree dated 31.10.2006, filed the execution in order to recover possession as present appellants who are the son and daughter of Harpinder Singh filed the Objections on the ground that the decree holders have not become the owners of the entire property left behind by Tehal Singh as the decree dated 20.7.1991 was set aside by decree dated 31.10.2006 and the share of their mother Gurdip Kaur reverted back to her and after her death, succeeded by them. The Objections filed by the appellants were dismissed by the Executing Court and the appeal filed by them also met with the same fate. Hence, the present second appeal.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants has reiterated the stand taken by him before the Courts below about the share of their mother in the property in dispute on the ground that after the decree dated 20.7.1991 was set aside in toto, the rights of their mother would revive and status quo ante has to be presumed and on that count, they would be entitled to their 1/4th share. Counsel for the appellants, however, has submitted that the present appellants have also filed separate suit bearing No.393/2012 seeking declaration with consequential relief of joint possession and permanent injunction on the same premise that after the decree dated 20.7.1991 was set aside by the decree dated 31.10.2006, right in the property to the extent of 1/4th share in favour of the mother has revived and the said suit has also been dismissed by the trial Court on 16.12.2014 and the following observations have been made therein.