IMPORTANT POINT
Both under Sections 6 and 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, with respect to coparcenary property and separate property of Hindu male dying intestate, a daughter is entitled to succeed having a share equal to a son.

JUDGMENT

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.—Appellant – plaintiff, a retired Army Personnel, has taken exception to the order 13.09.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital, in Original Suit No. 08 of 2021, thereby dismissing her application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for brevity). Appellant-plaintiff, respondents - defendant nos. 1 and 3 are brother and sisters and they are the only surviving legal heirs of late Shri Hukum Singh. Shri Hukum Singh purchased a property from its previous owner Shri Ram Nath Satthi bearing Khata No. 00693, plot no. 691 GMe measuring 0.1080 hectares, plot no. 692 A measuring 0.3490 hectares, plot no. 693 G measuring 0.1580 hectares, total 0.6150 hectares on execution of a registered deed of sale dated 11.01.1984. He was delivered possession thereof in the year 2009. Father of the appellant – plaintiff gifted a piece of land to the plaintiff – appellant measuring 3850 sq. ft. through a registered gift deed with respect to plot no. 0.691 GMe. It was a self-acquired property of father of the appellant – plaintiff. On 05.01.2017, father of the appellant – plaintiff, Shri Hukum Singh died intestate leaving behind plaintiff – appellant and defendant – respondent nos. 1 and 3. However, the case of the appellant - plaintiff is that after the death of her father, defendant – respondent no. 1 by manipulating the records mutated his name exclusively with revenue records on 12.09.2017. Thereafter, he transferred the land in favour of his wife through gift deeds dated 03.11.2018 and 29.12.2018. When the aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff – appellant, she filed complaints before District Magistrate, Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital and also before other appropriate forums.

By virtue of notification dated 05.03.2014, the Government of Uttarakhand had declared the area where the property is situated within the local limits of Haldwani – Kathgodam Municipality. It is further case of the plaintiff – appellant that by virtue of inclusion of the area within the local limits of Nagar Nigam, the provisions of the Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the UZALR, Act” for brevity) shall not be applicable, on such land especially with relation to succession. It is further case of the plaintiff – appellant that Hindu Succession Act, 1956, amended in the year 2005, will be applicable in the matter and the plaintiff – appellant has right over the property.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff – appellant would further submit that respondent no. 2, who happens to be the wife of respondent no. 1, has entered into a contract with another person, who has started raising construction over the said property for commercial use. It is also stated that respondent no. 2 entered into a contract with another person, in which contractor has agreed to build flats over the property, in question, for the purpose of selling them to different prospective buyers. Thus, on such pleadings, the plaintiff – appellant has prayed for the following reliefs:—

“A. That a decree of declaration may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 and 2 by declaring gift deeds executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 dated 03.11.2018 which is registered in Bhai No. 1, Zild No. 1661, pages 193 to 208, Karmank 8179, and gift deed dated 29.12.2018 which is registered in Bhai No. 1, Zild No. 1697, pages 191 to 208, Karmank 9135, are void up to the extent of plaintiff share. B. That a decree of declaration may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 and 2 by declaring to the plaintiff as co-owner up to 1/3 share in the property detailed in para no. 2 of the plaint along with the defendants. C. That a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction may kindly b