##PAGE1##

RSA-4255-1999 (O&M) -1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

RSA-4255-1999 (O&M)

Reserved on:-09.12.2025

Pronounced on:- 22.12.2025

Uploaded on:-22.12.2025

Whether only operative part of the judgment is

Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment

Surinder Singh (since deceased) through LRs ....Appellant

VERSUS

Ujagar Singh (since deceased) through LRs and Others ....Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. J.S.Bhandohal, Advocate

for LRs of respondent No.1.

Service of respondents No.2 to 7 dispensed with

vide order dated 22.12.1999

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant–

defendant against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.1999 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff

was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1994 passed by the learned

Sub Judge, Rupnagar, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, were set aside.

Brief Facts

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Chamela Singh was the

owner of the suit land. The plaintiff Ujagar Singh and defendants No.2 to 4 are his

TRIPTI SAINI

2025.12.22 15:53

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-4255-1999 (O&M) -2

sons, defendants No.5 to 7 are his daughters, and defendant No.1 Surinder Singh is

his grandson, being the son of defendant No.4 Pritam Singh. The plaintiff filed a

suit for declaration and possession claiming that the suit property was joint Hindu

family coparcenary property in which he had a share by birth and further pleaded

that Chamela Singh was competent only to the extent of his share and had no right

to alienate the entire property. It was alleged that a decree dated 20.12.1986 had

been obtained by defendant No.1 Surinder Singh in collusion with Chamela Singh

on the basis of wrong facts and that the said decree was illegal, void, inoperative

and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed that he

was entitled to possession of 1/4th share in the suit land measuring 60 kanals 1

marla and sought a declaration to that effect.

3. The defendants contested the suit and denied that the suit property

was ancestral or coparcenary. It was specifically pleaded that the suit land was the

self-acquired property of Chamela Singh, who was its exclusive and absolute

owner. It was pleaded that during his lifetime, Chamela Singh, out of love and

affection and in view of the services rendered by defendant No.1 Surinder Singh,

entered into a family arrangement in June 1986 and gave the suit property to him.

In order to give effect to the said family arrangement, defendant No.1 filed a civil

suit against Chamela Singh, which was decreed on 20.12.1986 with the consent of

Chamela Singh. It was pleaded that pursuant thereto defendant No.1 became owner

in possession of the suit land and that the plaintiff had already been separated

during the lifetime of Chamela Singh after receiving his share and was estopped

from filing the present suit.

TRIPTI SAINI

2025.12.22 15:53

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-4255-1999 (O&M) -3

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on

14.12.1989:-

1. Whether the plaintiff and his father Chamela Singh formed a

joint Hindu family coparcenary with defendants No.2 to 4? OPP

2. Whether suit property is joint Hindu family coparcenary

property of the plaintiff and his father Chamela Singh and defendants

No.2 to 4? OPP

3. Whether the decree dated 20.12.1986 is illegal, void and

ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff? OPP

4. Whether Chamela Singh executed a valid Will dated

07.04.1969 in favour of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4? OPP

5. Whether defendants No.5 to 7 are estopped from claiming any

right or title to the suit land? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by

his act and adm