PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
Kuldeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
Gurdial Singh alias Dial Singh and others - Respondents
R.S.A. No. 2056 of 1993.
Decided On : 3 July, 2007
Joint Owners - Property Dispute - Indian Succession Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, Hindu Minority and Gurdianship Act - 30 of the Hindu Succession Act - 66 kanals 12 marlas, 8 kanals 6 marlas - The court held that Mehma Singh had executed a valid gift in favour of Sarmukh Singh for the land and had also mortgaged the land in equal shares with Gurdial Singh, Bhajan Singh and Gurdial Singh each have a right to 1/3rd share. The plaintiffs are entitled for separate possession of the land measuring 66 kanals 12 marlas out of the ancestral land plus 4 kanals 3 marlas which was mortgaged by Mehma Singh with Gurdial Singh and Bhajan Singh being 1/2 share of the land measuring 8 kanals 6 marlas.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration claiming joint ownership of the suit property as co-parceners and separate possession by partition of their respective shares. The court found that Mehma Singh had executed a valid gift in favour of Sarmukh Singh for the land and had also mortgaged the land in equal shares with Gurdial Singh, Bhajan Singh and Gurdial Singh each have a right to 1/3rd share. The plaintiffs are entitled for separate possession of the land measuring 66 kanals 12 marlas out of the ancestral land plus 4 kanals 3 marlas which was mortgaged by Mehma Singh with Gurdial Singh and Bhajan Singh being 1/2 share of the land measuring 8 kanals 6 marlas.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Mehma Singh had executed a valid gift in favour of Sarmukh Singh for the land and had also mortgaged the land in equal shares with Gurdial Singh, Bhajan Singh and Gurdial Singh each have a right to 1/3rd share. The plaintiffs are entitled for separate possession of the land measuring 66 kanals 12 marlas out of the ancestral land plus 4 kanals 3 marlas which was mortgaged by Mehma Singh with Gurdial Singh and Bhajan Singh being 1/2 share of the land measuring 8 kanals 6 marlas.
Issues: The issues included whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, whether the property in dispute is coparcenary property of the parties, whether Mehma Singh executed a valid Will, and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration and separate possession of the land in dispute by way of partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Mehma Singh had executed a valid gift in favour of Sarmukh Singh for the land and had also mortgaged the land in equal shares with Gurdial Singh, Bhajan Singh and Gurdial Singh each have a right to 1/3rd share. The plaintiffs are entitled for separate possession of the land measuring 66 kanals 12 marlas out of the ancestral land plus 4 kanals 3 marlas which was mortgaged by Mehma Singh with Gurdial Singh and Bhajan Singh being 1/2 share of the land measuring 8 kanals 6 marlas.
Final Decision: The court passed a decree of separate possession in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of 66 kanals 12 marlas out of the ancestral land and to the extent of 1/2 share of 8 kanals 6 marlas in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This order shall dispose of two regular second appeals bearing Nos. 2056 of 1993 and 2843 of 1980 titled Kuldeep Singh and others v. Gurdial Singh alias Dial Singh and others and Bhajan Singh v. Mehma Singh and another, respectively.
For facility facts are being taken from RSA No. 2056 of 1993.
Present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below vide which a decree of separate possession in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of 66 kanals 12 marlas out of the ancestral land and to the extent of 1/2 share of 8 kanals 6 marlas was passed.
2. The plaintiff-appellants had filed a suit for declaration claiming therein that the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 and defendant Nos. 1 to 11 and 13 are joint owners of the suit property as co-parceners, and being heirs of Mehma Singh and also that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 and defendant No. 13 being heirs of Bhajan Singh and consequently the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to get joint possession of the suit property and also separate possession by partition of their respective shares and that the collusive decree in suit No. 422 of 1978 decided on 5.8.1978 suffered by late Mehma Singh in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 7 of land mentioned in (c) below and the gift deeds executed by late Mehma Singh in favour of defendant No. 2, on 5.2.1971 in respect of land mentioned at (e) and house at (f) and that the will made by late Mehma Singh on 29.9.1977 or any other date in favour of defendant Gurdial Singh or any other defendant in respect of the suit property or any part thereof, are null and void, illegal and ineffective and that disposal of property by such act of Mehma Singh is not binding on the reversionary rights and rights of heirship of the parties and that land (a) of the plaint placed under mortgage with Bhajan Singh and defendant Gurdial Singh by Mehma Singh deceased, out of the suit land was merged into ownership with the parties according to their shares, on the death of Mehma Singh and also that entires made in the revenue records after setting aside the collusive decree in suit file No. 422 are incorrect and are liable to be corrected.
(a) Land 18//5/2 (3-18), 19//1/1 (0-18), 10/2 (3-10), Kittas 3 area (8-6) entered in Khewat Khatoni No. 17/31.
(b) Land comprising in 18//17/3/4-4), Khewat Khatoni No. 16/30
(c) 7//23/2 (3-18), 29(11-3), 13//1(7-2), 2(7-2), 3(7-2), 4(6-12), 7/2(2-9), 8/2(6-0), 9(8-0), 10/1(6-4), 12/2(6-12), 13/1(4-6), 14//6/1(1-4), 6/2(6-16), 7(2-4), 18//18(8-4), 19//11/1(0-11), 11/2(1-2), Khasra No. 30 min (0-13), Khasra No. 123 Khata 15/29.
(d) (1) 18//15/1(4-12), 5(6-18), 14/2/1(2-18), 15(8-4), Kittas 4 Area 22-12 of Khewat Khata 14/28.
(2) 4//22/2(3-0), 23/1(4-12), 7//3(7-15), 4(7-7), 5(7-7), 6(8-0), 7/1(4-16), 8/2(2-18), 14/2(3-0), 15(7-12), 16/2(4-1), 17/1(1-11), Khasra Nos. 28(1-5), 41(2-18), 30Min(0-14), 123(0-2), Kittas 26 Area 67-8 of Khewat Khata 14/28.
(e) (1) Khasra No. 50(2-0) of Khewat Khatoni No. 18/32
(2) Khasra Nos. 30Min (0-14), 123(0-2), 211/1(0-14), 18//14/2(2-12), 17/2(0- 5), 23(6-12), 24/1(1-2), 22//22/2(3-6), 3/1(4-16), 9/2(4-14), 9/3(2-10), 13(8-0), 12/1(1-6), 3/2(2-0), 8(7-7), 9/1(1-15), 12/2(3-16), 14/1(2-8), 17/2(2-17), 18(9-13), 18(6-1), 14//4(3-0), 5(7-2), Kittas 23 area 83-3 of Khewat Khatoni No. 18/32, as entered in Jamabandi 1982-83 of village Kheri Bir Singh of Tehsil Sirhind.
(f) Residential house bounded as :-
East : House of Surmukh Singh defendant purchased by him from Gurdial Singh S/o Jevan Singh.
West : Thoroughfare
South : House of Gurdial Singh defendant. Hara and Gohara within Abadi area of Kheri Bir Singh, Tehsil Sirhind.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :
The pedigree-table of the parties is as under :-
See Table Below 131806
3. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the land mentioned in the head note of the plaint was got in consolidation proceedings in lieu of land which was inherited by Mehma Singh from his grandfahter
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.