2023:PHHC:061190 Page 1 of 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

258

CR-2324-2021 (O&M)

Date of decision: 17.04.2023

Kamalpreet Singh

...Peoner(s)

Vs.

Satnam Singh & Others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-

Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate

for the peoner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate puts in appearance on

behalf of respondent No.1/plainff and files Vakalatnama which is taken

on record.

2.

Present Revision Peon has been filed by the

peoner/defendant No.1 seeking seng aside of order dated

06.09.2021 (Annexure P8) whereby peoner’s applicaon seeking

permission to file addional wrien statement/rejoinder to the

addional plea taken by the plainff/respondent no. 1 herein, in the

amended replicaon filed by him, has been dismissed.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that plainff/respondent

No.1 had filed a Suit for Declaraon to the effect that the plainff is joint

owner in joint possession in the land as fully described in the head note

of the plaint. The plainff had claimed ownership over the suit property

on the ground that the suit property was joint Hindu coparcenary

property/ancestral property and plainff was a coparcener of the joint

Hindu family. Plainff also sought a declaraon that the transfer

deed/sale deed qua the suit property as alleged to have been executed

SUNENA

2023.04.29 12:11

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:061190 Page 2 of 7

by Sh. Ajaib Singh in favour of the peoner/defendant No.1 was illegal.

Plainff also sought consequenal relief of permanent injuncon

restraining the defendants from alienang, selling, transferring or

mortgaging the suit property.

4.

Learned counsel for the peoner inter alia submits:

i) that perusal of plaint (Annexure P1) clearly shows

that the plainff had sought declaraon as joint owner in joint

possession of the suit property on the basis of naturally inhering the

suit property being ancestral and joint Hindu coparcenary property aer

declaring the sale deed/transfer deed executed by Sh. Ajaib Singh in

favour of the peoner as null and void;

ii) that upon receipt of noce, the

peoner/defendant No.1 had first filed an applicaon under Order 7

Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinaer referred to as

“the CPC”) for rejecon of the plaint. However, the same was declined

by the learned trial Court.

iii) The peoner subsequently filed amended wrien

statement dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P3) to the plaint wherein he

pointed out that suit property is not Joint Hindu Family coparcenary of

the plainff; and that Sh. Ajaib Singh had become exclusive owner of the

suit property by way of gi deed dated 16.03.1959 executed in his

favour by Gurdas Kaur and Gurmej Kaur, as also Will dated 16.03.1959

executed by Smt. Chanan Kaur in favour of Sh. Ajaib Singh; and that

thereaer, Sh. Ajaib Singh had executed registered Will dated

SUNENA

2023.04.29 12:11

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:061190 Page 3 of 7

01.03.2000, as also registered gi deed dated 11.04.2000 in favour of

the peoner;

iv) that thereaer, respondent No.1/plainff filed

amended replicaon dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure P4) to the above

menoned amended wrien statement filed by the peoner. It is

submied that it is for the first me in this replicaon that the

respondent No.1/plainff took the new plea that “..The plainff came to

know that Ajaib Singh executed only one Will during his life me

regarding his property on 26/8/97 in the name of husband of the

plainff & father of the defendant No.1...”. It is submied that

heretofore, the plainff had never based his claim on Will dated

26.08.1997 and accordingly, as new plea had been taken by the plainff

in the replicaon, it was necessitated that the peoner amend his

wrien statement/file addional wri