IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-4512-2012 (O&M) Reserved on:-09.09.2025 Date of Decision : 15.09.2025 Sukhpal Kaur and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Balbir Singh ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. G.P.S.Bal, Advocate for the respondent.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU,J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, whereby the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 10.08.2010 decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff, and the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2012 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants/defendants, thereby upholding the decision of the learned trial Court.

Brief Facts

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/6th share in the suit property as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, situated at village Pattar Kalan, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The plaintiff also sought relief of permanent injunction TRIPTI SAINI restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property, and in the alternative also prayed for a decree of possession against the defendants. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff ordinarily resides in the United Kingdom and came to India in connection with the death of his father, Tara Singh. He executed a Special Power of Attorney on 06.12.2003 in favour of Manjinder Singh, son of Manohar Singh, resident of village Chitti, District Jalandhar, authorising him to file the suit on his behalf. Tara Singh, father of the plaintiff, was the exclusive owner of the suit property. The plaintiff is the only son of his father Tara Singh, since deceased, and he succeeded to his estate including the suit property on the basis of natural succession. The plaintiff became owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of natural succession after the death of his father Tara Singh.

4. It is further pleaded that the defendants started proclaiming their ownership over the suit property on the basis of some registered Will alleged to have been executed by Tara Singh in their favour. The Will so set up by the defendants is a forged, fabricated, illegal and void document and is the result of impersonation. The plaintiff further pleaded that the property is ancestral property and constitutes joint Hindu family property of the plaintiff with his father Tara Singh, and hence no such Will could have been executed with respect thereto. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and possession in the alternative against the defendants.

5. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and joint filed written statement alleging therein that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It was pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in the present form and does not lie against defendants No. 2 and 3 on account of their TRIPTI SAINI minority status. It was further contended that the attorney-holder of the plaintiff is not competent to file the suit. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property.

6. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff has permanently settled in the United Kingdom and he never came to see his father Tara Singh, nor did he look after or maintain him. Tara Singh, since deceased, was living with the defendants, and it was they who took care of him in his old age. Husband of defendant No. 1, Sukhpal Kaur, had expired in the year 1994, and thereafter Tara Singh was looked after and cared for by the defendants. Tara Singh was suffering from breathing problems and was treated by the defendants. The plaintiff never came to see his ailing father Tara Singh in the hospital. It was the defendants wh