JAGTAR SINGH Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against the judgment and decree dtd. 13/9/2012 passed by the first Appellate Court whereby appeal preferred by the respondents against the judgment and decree dtd. 9/6/2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura was partly allowed, judgment and decree dtd. 9/6/2008 have been modified and respondents No. 1 to 5 have been declared to be joint owners to the extent of 5/24 shares i.e. 1/24 share each of respondents No. 1 to 5.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs, daughters of Munshi filed suit for joint possession claiming 1/24 share each in land measuring 43 bigha 2 biswas, detailed in head note of the plaint on the basis of natural succession. It is averred that Munshi expired on 21/8/1994 and he had 1/3rd share in suit land as co- owner. His estate was to devolve upon his three sons and five daughters in equal shares by succession. Raghbir Singh-defendant No. 3 has also expired and he is survived by his widow, two sons and two daughters. The plaintiffs were under the impression that estate of Munshi in the ordinary course of events might have been mutated in the names of his sons and daughters who are legal heirs. It has come to knowledge of the plaintiffs that partition proceedings are pending in the court of Tehsildar, Rajpura in between defendants in which the plaintiffs have not been made parties. It created a doubt in the minds of plaintiffs and after verification, it has been found that names of plaintiffs do not figure in the revenue records as heirs of Munshi.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed the written statement admitting claim of the plaintiffs/respondents. Defendant No. 3 Raghbir Singh (since deceased) represented by his LRs including appellant Jagtar Singh seriously contested claim of the respondents-plaintiffs. By way of preliminary objections, it is averred that Raghbir Singh filed suit for joint possession against Ujagar Singh and others regarding suit property. Suit was decreed and decree was upheld upto the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Meeto, respondent No. 5 appeared in the said suit and made a statement that suit property is ancestral coparcenary property and three sons of Munshi have birth right in the suit property. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit at the behest of defendant No. 1 with a view to prolong partition proceedings as such the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act, conduct and acquiescence. All other material averments of the plaint on the basis whereof plaintiffs have staked their claim to the suit property were denied. However, it has been admitted that Munshi expired on 21/8/1994.