MUKHTIAR KAUR Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two Regular Second For Subsequent orders

(2.) Appeals bearing Nos.3048 of 1987 and 3567 of 2005 and Contempt Petition bearing No.2886 of 2011.

(3.) Mr. K.S.Cheema, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant submits that the suit, aforementioned, primarily was based on the premise that the parties are Hindu and governed by the principles of Hindu Law stating therein that Guli had three sons, namely, Rakha, Norata Singh and Harnam Singh. Harnam Singh more than 20 years ago had died issueless. After the death of Guli, his property was mutated in equal shares in the names of his sons, Rakha and Norata Singh. Norata Singh also died 15 years back, who had four sons, namely, Dev Raj, Dalip Singh, Amar Nath and Ram Lal. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2, namely, Darshan Singh and Gurcharan Singh are sons of Ram Lal, whereas, plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are daughters of Ram Lal and Surjit Kaur, wife of Ram Lal, instituted the suit on the premise that they all constituted a coparcenary property with their father, Ram Lal, as after the death of Narota, his estate was mutated in equal shares in the names of Dev Raj and Ram Lal, i.e., defendants No2 and For Subsequent orders 3 respectively. Mukhtiar Kaur was earlier married to Dalip Singh, thereafter, was married with Amar Nath. The land measuring 60 bighas 2 biswas situated in Khanaura is ancestral property and descended from the common ancestor Guli by succession and therefore, plaintiffs No.1 to 5 having equal share with Ram Lal as property, being ancestral, was immune/exempted from attachment/sale in execution of the decree. The sale of the suit land in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur was without consideration and legal necessity against the inherent of Hindu Family, therefore, the same be declared illegal.