COL. AMARDEEP SINGH Vs. ANUPAMDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant before this Court challenging the concurrent finding of fact rendered vide judgments and decrees dtd. 17/10/2018 and 28/5/2025 passed by the learned trial Court and the learned 1st Appellate Court respectively whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents has been decreed by the learned trial Court and the appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court has been dismissed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial Court.

(3.) In brief, the facts are that Smt. Amrit Kaur and Sh. Gurcharan Singh, who were mother and father of plaintiffs and defendant, died on 13/8/2004 and 19/12/2009 respectively. Smt. Amrit Kaur, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and defendant were holding share in the suit property i.e. House No.35, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh in the ratio of 40%, 20%, 20% and 20% respectively. Being a joint holding, the aforesaid house was being used by all the co-owners as one family. After the death of their mother Smt. Amrit Kaur, plaintiffs had believed that her 40% share in the aforesaid house will be devolved upon them equally. However, after death of their father Sh. Gurcharan Singh, defendant had filed civil suit for declaration and injunction wherein he claimed himself to be owner to the extent of 60% by propounding Will dtd. 30/10/2009 alleged to be executed by Gurcharan Singh in his favour. They immediately approached the Estate Officer under RTI Act and came to know that mutation with respect to share of their mother Amrit Kaur has been recorded on the basis of Will executed by Mr. Amrit Kaur, alleged to be registered on 28/4/1998 in favour of Gurcharan Singh, who further executed a Will in favour of the defendant. Plaintiffs had filed an application before the Estate Officer, Chandigarh for correction of the mutation but no action had been taken. They also approached the Chief Administrator against the order dtd. 26/7/2005 whereby the mutation was recorded in favour of Dr. Gurcharan Singh but their request was declined vide order dtd. 15/9/2010. Hence, the present suit.