IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
Surjit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Chint Kaur (Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs Surjit Kaur and Bhajan Kaur) & Anr. – Respondents
RSA-3259 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 02-12-2023
JUDGMENT
Amarjot Bhatti, J.
The appellant/plaintiff - Surjit Kaur has filed Regular Second Appeal against impugned judgment and decree dated 18.09.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide which the appeal preferred by Surjit Kaur plaintiff was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandpur Sahib dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff was upheld.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Surjit Kaur had filed suit for declaration that she is joint owner/co-sharer in joint possession of the land measuring 104 kanals - 4 marlas as mentioned in head note of the plaint situated at village Bela Ramgarh, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar as per jamabandi for the year 2002-03 and five number of gift deeds all dated 30.05.2005 alleged to be executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and the mutation numbers 2756, 2757, 2758, 2760 and 2761 and the revenue record showing defendant No. 2 as owner in possession on the basis of alleged five gift deeds are wrong, illegal, null, incompetent, forged, fabricated, result of fraud, without consideration and are not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and are liable to be set aside alongwith suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly and illegally, changing the nature of suit land, raising any type of construction or structure, selling, alienating the suit land, cutting and removing the trees or creating any type of charge on the suit land in any manner and in the alternative filed suit for possession.
3. The plaintiff submitted that she is the joint owner, co-sharer in joint possession of suit land recorded in the name of Chint Kaur, as detailed in the head note of the plaint. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are the members of Joint Hindu Family and they were co-parcenars with their father Kesra Singh. The suit land was ancestral land in the hands of Kesra Singh. The pedigree table showing the relationship of plaintiff and defendants with Kesra Singh is as under :-
Wazira
- Deva Singh
- Kesra Singh
Smt. Chint Kaur
(defendant No. 1)
Smt. Bhajan Kaur
(defendant No. 2)
Smt. Surjit Kaur
(plaintiff)
It was further submitted that Deva Singh expired in the year about 1922 and after the death of Deva Singh, the suit property was inherited by his sons Mehar Singh and Kesra Singh. That Kesra Singh executed a sale deed dated 27.08.1985 in favour of his wife Chint Kaur, defendant No. 1 regarding the land as mentioned in para No. 5 of the plaint. It was further submitted that Kesra Singh had no right to sell the land measuring 34 kanals - 3 marlas, in favour of defendant No. 1, being their Joint Hindu Family coparcenary and ancestral property. The alleged sale deed is wrong, illegal, null and void. That Kesra Singh died intestate in the year 1989, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 (daughters) as the sole legal heirs under the Hindu Mitakshra Law and after his death the entire property was inherited by plaintiff and defendant No. 2 in equal shares. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are also entitled to the share of Chint Kaur in equal shares being the property held by Chint Kaur on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 27.08.1985 was ancestral land. It was further submitted that the five number of gift deeds all dated 30.05.2005 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Chint Kaur in favour of defendant No. 2 are wrong, illegal, null, void, forged, fabricated and undue influence practised by defendant No. 2 upon defendant No. 1. It was further submitted that Chint Kaur was old lady, aged about 90 years and defendant No. 2 in collusion with the attesting witnesses, scribe and the registration agency procured the alleged gift deeds by practising fraud upon defendant No. 2. The plaintiff was looking after and maintaining her parents after her marriage in the year 1972 by staying with her parents in village Bela Ramgarh.
AI
The court upheld the validity of gift deeds executed by a competent donor, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence to prove claims of fraud or undue influence.
Hindu Succession – After coming into force of Hindu Succession Act 1956, Mulla’s Hindu Law is no more applicable in matter of succession.
A Kartha of a Hindu Joint Family cannot gift joint family property without the consent of other coparceners, rendering such a Gift Deed invalid.
A managing member of a Hindu undivided family may validly gift joint property for charitable purposes without the consent of other coparceners, provided the purpose aligns with the definition of piou....
An unregistered gift deed does not confer title to real property, necessitating proper registration and the inclusion of all necessary parties in a suit for declaration.
The main legal point established is the application of the principles of granting interlocutory injunction, emphasizing the need to protect the plaintiff against irreparable injury and injustice.
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.