Back
2001 Supreme(P&H) 655
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Harnek Singh - Appellants
Versus
Sukhdev Singh - Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 3399 of 2000.
Decided On : 4 July, 2001
For the Appellants :Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate.
The judgment establishes the principles of coparcenary property under Hindu Law, the requirements for proving the validity of a will under the Indian Succession Act, and the significance of ancestral property in determining ownership rights.
Headnote:
Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property - Hindu Law - Section 223 of Hindu Law - Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act - Will - Validity of Will - Ancestral Property - Registered Will - Joint Possession - Mutation - Karta - Guardian - Coparcenary Property
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, sons of Santokh Singh, filed a suit for declaration and joint possession of a coparcenary property, claiming equal ownership. They argued that the property devolved upon them after their father's death and that the mutation in favor of other defendants was illegal. The defendants contested the suit, denying the coparcenary nature of the property and the validity of the mutation.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the appellate court both ruled against the plaintiffs, finding that the property was not ancestral and coparcenary in nature, and that the will executed by Santokh Singh was valid. The courts dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
Issues: The main issues were whether the property was coparcenary in nature, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to joint possession, and the validity of the will executed by Santokh Singh.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts held that the property was not ancestral and coparcenary, as it devolved upon Santokh Singh through a decree and not by survivorship. The courts also found that the will was validly executed, as it was duly proved and there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding it.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgments of the lower courts.
R.L. Anand, J. - Unsuccessful plaintiffs Harnek Singh and Bhajan Singh sons of Santokh Singh have filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.10.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 3.4.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samrala who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff -appellants for declaration and joint possession as prayed for.
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they and defendants No. 1 and 2 are absolute owners in equal shares i.e. 1/4th share each of the land fully described in the head-note of the plaint and that a decree for joint possession of the said land be passed in their favour and defendant No. 1 and 2. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the trial Court was that they and defendants No. 1 and 2 are Jat Sikh and governed by Hindu Law. The suit property is a coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2 and Santokh Singh, father of the plaintiffs, was acting as Karta of the family. He died on 24.5.1990 and after his death plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2 have become the absolute owners in equal shares of the suit property. The mutation bearing No. 3921 of the suit property in favour of defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 i.e. Sukhdev Singh, Kuldip Singh and Ravinder Singh alias Rajinder Singh respectively is illegal, null and void as the property has been wrongly mutated in their names on the basis of registered will dated 8.5.1990. According to the plaintiff-appellants, defendants No. 3 and 4 are minors and they have been impleaded through their father Kewal Singh, defendant No. 2, are who has no adverse interest against them.
3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 to 4 only. According to them, the suit was not maintainable. The plaintiffs have not taken the permission from the Court to appoint Kewal Singh as guardian of the minors. The suit property is not a coparcenary property in the hands of Santokh Singh. The plaintiffs were separate in kitchen, mess and residence and the mutation has been correctly sanctioned on the basis of registered will dated 8.5.1980 which was executed in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 by Santosh Singh. With this short defence the said defendants made a prayer for the dismissal of the suit.
4. The plaintiffs filed a re-joinder to the written statement of the defendants in which they reiterated their averments made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-
1. Whether plaintiffs constitute a Joint Hindu Family coparcenary body ? OPP
2. Whether the suit property is joint Hindu Family coparcenary property ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to Joint possession of the suit land ? OPP
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPP
6. Whether the deceased Santokh Singh has executed legal and valid will dated 8.5.90 in favour of his sons, if so, its effect ? OPD
7. Relief."
5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and on conclusion of the proceedings the trial Court decided issues No. 1 to 4 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. Issue No. 5 was decided against the defendants. Issue No. 6 was decided in favour of the defendants. Resultantly, vide judgment and decree dated 3.4.1997 the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Samrala dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
6. Not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court the plaintiffs/appellants filed first appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana, who vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7.10.1999 dismissed the same.
7. The plaintiffs/appellants are not still satisfied with the judgment and decrees of the Courts below, hence the present appeal.
8.
