Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rekha Mittal, J.
Naresh & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Deepak Singh & Ors. - Respondents
RSA No. 966 of 2012 (O&M) and RSA No. 1086 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 30-08-2019
Mr. S.K.GargNarwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate, for the appellant; Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate, for the respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 12 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which deals with the order of succession among agnates and cognates.
Headnote:
Inheritance - Land Dispute - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the inheritance of land left behind by Nafe Singh, who died issueless. The plaintiffs claimed inheritance to the estate of Nafe Singh, challenging a judgment and decree in favor of the defendants and a will purportedly executed by Nafe Singh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable, and the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 and 4 were entitled to possession of the suit property and to inherit the same in equal shares. The court also held that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 and 4 were entitled to inherit the entire estate left behind by Nafe Singh, except for the land subject to the judgment and decree dated 2.10.1996, which the appellants were declared owners and in possession of.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, the validity of the judgment and decree dated 2.10.1996, and the validity of the will dated 15.8.1996.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was maintainable, and the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 and 4 were entitled to inherit the estate of Nafe Singh. The court also found that the judgment and decree dated 2.10.1996 were valid, and the appellants were declared owners and in possession of the suit land. Additionally, the court rejected the will dated 15.8.1996, and the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 and 4 were declared co-owners of the remaining suit land.
Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed, with the appellants declared owners and in possession of the suit land subject to the judgment and decree dated 2.10.1996. The suit filed by plaintiff No. 2 in respect of the said land failed and was dismissed. The plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 3 and 4 were declared to be co-owners of the remaining suit land and were entitled to recover its possession from the appellants/defendants No. 1 and 2.
JUDGMENT
Rekha Mittal, J. - This order will dispose of RSA No. 966 and 1086 of 2012 as identical questions of law and fact are involved for adjudication. For facility of reference, facts are taken from RSANo. 966 of 2012.
2. The present litigation pertains to land left behind by Nafe Singh who died issueless. Said Nafe Singh was son of Bhartu and Bhartu is the brother of Naubat. Plaintiff Kamla is the daughter of Naubat and Deepak Singh, plaintiff No. 1 is the grand son of Naubat being son of Rajender and nephew of Smt. Kamla. Defendants No. 3 and 4 namely Nirmala and Indra Wati are also daughters of Sh. Naubat. The contesting defendants Naresh and Suresh (appellants herein) are the sons of Mahender who is also collateral of Nafe Singh but degree of ascent of Suresh and Naresh viz-a-viz Nafe Singh is more as compared to plaintiff Kamla.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming inheritance to the estate of Nafe Singh. They challenged judgment and decree dated 2.10.1996 purported to be suffered by Sh. Nafe Singh in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 and Will dated 15.8.1996 propounded by defendants No. 1 and 2 to be executed by Sh. Nafe Singh. It is contended that Nafe Singh was an illiterate person and he did not have rational thinking as he was not of sound disposing mind. Defendants No. 1 and 2 exercised undue influence on deceased Nafe Singh and fraudulently obtained decree dated 2.10.1996 and Will dated 15.8.1996. No family settlement was arrived as alleged in Civil Suit No. 960 of 1996 titled "Suresh and others vs. Nafe Singh". Nafe Singh neither appeared before the court nor engaged a counsel nor filed written statement and made statement before the court admitting claim of defendants No. 1 and 2. The impugned decree was obtained on the basis of impersonation. Defendants No. 1 and 2 had no pre-existing right in the suit property and the decree is not a registered document.
4. The appellants-defendants No. 1 and 2 filed the written statement and contested claim of respondents-plaintiffs. It is averred that answering defendants are nephews of Nafe Singh who was unmarried andissueless. Nafe Singh was Jat by caste. He was having power to alienate his properties in any manner. Nafe Singh transferred his land in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 under a family settlement. All other material averments of the plaint have been denied on the basis whereof plaintiffs challenged judgment and decree dated 2.10.1996 and Will dated 15.8.1996. They raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppel and locus standi.
5. The trial court framed issues vide order dated 28.1.2003, reproduced in para 6 of judgment of said court. The parties were permitted to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Having heard counsel for the parties in the light of materials on record, the trial court dismissed the suit with costs.
6. Appeal preferred by Deepak Singh in which Smt. Kamla was arrayed as respondent was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside. Plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 and 4 are held entitle to possession of suit property being collaterals of Nafe Singh and inherit the same in equal shares.
7. Counsel for the appellants raised a preliminary issue that suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and liable to be dismissed on this score. To bring home his contention, it is argued that as per pedigree table, reproduced in the plaint, Naubat had four daughters namely Guddi, Nirmala, Kamla, Indra Wati and one son namely Rajender. It is argued that Guddi and Rajender have not been impleaded as party in the suit, therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Kanakarathanammal vs. V.S.Loganatha Mudaliar and another 1965 AIR (SC) 271. Further reference has been made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Udhav Singh vs. Madha
