Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Bidhi Chand - Appellant
Versus
Tribhuvan Singh @ Triburan Singh Through Lrs & Ors. - Respondents
RSA No. 3996 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-07-2019
Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. S.D. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.R. Sharma, Advocate; for the Respondents
The conclusive nature of findings recorded by the trial court and the importance of evidence in property disputes under the Hindu Succession Act.
Headnote:
Inheritance - Property Dispute - Hindu Succession Act - Issue No.6, 5, 7 - [KEYWORD] - [Inheritance] - [Hindu Succession Act, Issue No.6, 5, 7] - The court discussed the inheritance of property under the Hindu Succession Act, specifically focusing on Issue No.6, 5, and 7, and the legal implications of the findings on possession and tenancy. The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the conclusive nature of findings recorded by the trial court, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute regarding inheritance, where the plaintiff sought possession of the suit property against the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the lower appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the suit property as the legal representative of the deceased, and the defendants failed to provide evidence to support their claims of tenancy. The court also emphasized the conclusive nature of findings recorded by the trial court.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement to possession, joint possession, maintainability of counter claim, locus standi, non-joinder of necessary parties, valuation for court fee, and jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the conclusive nature of findings recorded by the trial court. It also highlighted the limitations on challenging findings and the need for appropriate applications to seek correction of records.
Final Decision: The appeal was found to be devoid of merits and was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - This appeal has been remanded by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 08.04.2019 for hearing in the preliminary hearing for the purposes of admission or dismissal.
2. CM No.5402-CII of 2019 in the present Regular Second Appeal was filed by learned counsel for the respondents for bringing on record the certified copy of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
3. Notice of the application was issued to the non-applicant/appellant as well as to Mr. Sarabjit Singh Khaira, Advocate. Office of Mr. Sarabjit Singh Khaira, Advocate communicated to the Registry that the brief has been taken away by his client. Thereafter, Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant.
4. Since the appeal was restored by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the appeal was ordered to be listed in urgent list vide order dated 16.05.2019 in the presence of both the parties.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in preliminary hearing.
6. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2018 passed by the District Judge, Pathankot whereby the decision of the trial Court dated 16.10.2013 was upheld.
7. Brief facts of the case are that Tribhuwan Singh Triburan Singh (since deceased) through his legal representatives filed a suit for possession in respect of the suit property against the defendants namely Bidhi Chand and Amar Singh. It was alleged by the plaintiff(s) that Smt. Prabhi Devi widow of Sh. Bodh Raj was owner of the suit property. She died on 12.04.1995. Her husband had pre-deceased her as he hadexpired before 1950. Smt. Prabhi Devi died intestate. Plaintiff(s) further alleged that defendant No.1 filed a Civil Suit No. 159 dated 02.05.1995 against Ram Kishan, Saran Dass, Sarishta Devi and Triburan Singh for declaration, claiming himself to be legal representative of Smt. Prabhi Devi on the basis of Wills dated 18.12.1989 and 21.03.1995. Sarishta Devi was impleaded as defendant No.3 and plaintiff-Tribhuvan Singh @ Triburan Singh was impleaded as defendant No.4 in the said suit. Defendants in the said suit contested the suit filed by Bidhi Chand. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Pathankot vide order dated 26.07.1999. Issue No.6 framed in the aforesaid suit was in respect of inheritance of Triburan Singh in respect of suit property as LR of deceased Prabhi Devi. Issue No.6 framed in the Civil Suit No. 159 dated 02.05.1995 was to the following effect:-
"6. Whether defendant No.4 inherited the suit property as LR of deceased Prabhi Devi? OPD"
8. The aforesaid issue No.6 was decided in favour of Sarishta Devi and Triburan Singh and against the plaintiff Bidhi Chand and defendants No.1 and 2 namely Ram Kishan and Saran Dass. Bidhi Chand (plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 159 of 02.05.1995) filed appeal before the Addl. District Judge Gurdaspur against judgment and decree dated 26.07.1999 passed by the trial Court. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.05.2004. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court, Bidhi Chand filed RSA No.2357 of 2004. The said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 02.12.2004 by the High Court. During course of arguments before the High Court, learned counsel for the appellant-Bidhi Chand did not challenge the validity of Wills and submitted that the claim of the plaintiff/appellant based on Wills dated 18.12.1989 and 21.03.1995 would be deemed to have been given up by the plaintiff and, therefore, he relinquished the relief of ownership in the suit property. He however submitted that plaintiff in para nos.9 and 12 of the plaint had claimed that the plaintiff was tenant over the suit property and relied upon certain documents. Learned counsel for the respondents controverted the same and submitted that the appellant was in unauthorized possession and lawful proceedings shall be instituted against the appellant. On the said submission, learned counsel for
