AVNINDER KAUR Vs. JASWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgement shall dispose off RSA-58-2022 filed by Avninder Kaur (defendant No.2-appellant) and RSA-78-2022 filed by Balwinder Kaur, legal representative of Jaswant Kaur (defendant No.1-appellant).

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondent No.1 - Jaswinder Kaur wife of late Bhinder Singh - filed the present suit seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had 102/3666 share i.e. 1/3rd share from 3051/2 share from Bhinder Singh's property mentioned in head note 'A' of the plaint after the death of Bhinder Singh as also challenged the mutation No.1054 dtd. 15/6/2009 as being illegal, null and void. The suit was also filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from alienating the suit property. The case set up by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was that Bhinder Singh was her husband, son of Jaswant Kaur (defendant No.1) and father of Avninder Kaur (defendant No.2). Bhinder Singh was owner in possession of the suit property, and he died intestate on 1/10/2002. On his death, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was turned out of the matrimonial home and the defendant-appellants succeeded in getting the mutation of the suit property sanctioned in their names showing the plaintiff-respondent No.1 as Harpreet Kaur and her status as married whereas the plaintiff-respondent No.1 never named herself Harpreet Kaur nor had remarried. On the basis of this the mutation in favour of the defendant-appellants was sanctioned. In the written statement it was admitted that Bhinder Singh was the husband of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the relationship of Bhinder Singh with defendant Nos.1 and 2 was also admitted. It was further admitted that he died on 1/10/2002 without executing any Will. However, the stand taken was that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had left the matrimonial house and had remarried and changed her name to Harpreet Kaur and had two children from her second marriage. In the replication, the contents of the plaint were reiterated and those of the written statement were denied.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :