AMARJIT KAUR Vs. SANDHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR some people litigation is a passion and it is used as an engine of harassment to others. If one generation has lost the litigation, the other generation is kept ready for initiating fresh dose of litigation. The cycle of litigation might have ended in the Supreme Court unfavourably but yet a new beginning is made by initiating another judicial process. These are the basic features of the case in hand. The defendant-petitioner has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution for challenging the interlocutory order dated 6.1.2005, passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, Rupnagar, whereby both the parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding possession despite the fact that sons of the plaintiff-respondent Sadhu Singh have lost the earlier litigation up to the Supreme Court in respect of the same land.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that three sons of Sadhu Singh, namely, Jaswant Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Jasvir Singh and three daughters of his brother Gurbax Singh, namely, Jaswinder Kaur, Jaswant Kaur and Baljit Kaur, who are defendant- respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the present case, had earlier filed a suit for declaration (for brevity, 'earlier suit') to the effect that they were owners of a part of the property owned by Shri Sarwan Singh, their uncle (brother of Sadhu Singh and Gurbax Singh). They claimed that they were in joint possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit land. The defendant-petitioner, who is widow of their uncle Shri Sarwan Singh (deceased) contested the aforementioned suit asserting that previously the suit property belonged to deceased Sarwan Singh who had married to her by a Karewa marriage in the year 1988. Later on the Karewanama was executed and registered on 10.9.1991 and as such she was residing with Sarwan Singh being his wife, which was common knowledge of every resident of the village. The Will set up by the children of Sadhu Singh and Gurbax Singh in the earlier suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner and she asserted that Sarwan Singh never executed any Will. It was alleged that the alleged Will dated 1.1.1993 is forged and fabricated document and, therefore, mutation in her favour after the death of Sarwan Singh had been rightly entered. On 23.4.1996, the trial Court dismissed the earlier suit by holding that Amarjit Kaur, defendant-petitioner, was legally wedded wife of deceased Sarwan Singh and the Will dated 1.1.1993 was not a genuine document. It was further held that deceased Sarwan Singh, in fact, bequeathed his property in favour of his wife Amarjit Kaur by way of registered Karewanama, who is presently defendant-petitioner. The findings recorded by the trial Court in the earlier suit were upheld by the learned District Judge, Rupnagar, vide his order dated 9.8.1999. Even Regular Second Appeal No. 4325 of 1999 was dismissed by this Court maintaining the view taken by the trail Court. The brief order of this Court reads as under :-

(3.) THE defendant-petitioner and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 Ajaib Singh and Harjinder Singh preferred an appeal against the above mentioned order and the learned lower Appellate Court, Rupnagar, vide impugned order dated 6.1.2005, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the learned trial Court despite the fact that it was brought to the notice of the learned lower Appellate Court including the findings recorded on various issues in the earlier suit.