IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ramesh Kumar Sharma …Appellant Versus Narender Parsad Jain …Respondent.

Reserved on: 20.01.2026 Pronounced on: 23.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate For the appellant.

Mr. Adarsh Jain, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate For the respondent.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff of the case, through her legal representative, assailing the judgment dated 29.05.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby the appeal filed by defendant No.1 was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 02.02.1994 passed by the learned trial Court, decreeing the suit for declaration, were set aside.

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion, the parties are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The trial Court re- cord, as available on the Digital Management System (DMS), has been carefully perused.

3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation are largely undisputed. The property in dispute was owned by one Rattan Lal Jain. He was married to Chhoti Bai, from whose wedlock no issue was born. According to the plaintiff Smt. Shanti Devi, about fifty two years prior to the institution of the suit (filed in March 1984), Rattan Lal Jain, with the consent of his first wife Chhoti Bai, per-

formed marriage with her at Karnal as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. One male child was born out of this wedlock, who unfortunately predeceased his father.

Rattan Lal Jain thereafter died issueless.

4. The case of the plaintiff further was that during his lifetime, Rattan Lal Jain, in a family settlement, agreed to transfer the disputed house in favour of his two wives, namely Chhoti Bai and the plaintiff, to the extent of half share each and made an oral declaration to that effect. After the death of Rattan Lal Jain, both women came into possession as co-owners. Subsequently, on the death of Chhoti Bai, the plaintiff claimed to have become the sole owner in pos-

session of the house by survivorship.

5. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff, having no independent source of income, let out a portion of the house to tenants and was receiving rent therefrom, while the remaining portion continued to remain in her posses- sion. The defendants, who are the real sisters of Rattan Lal Jain, allegedly started interfering in her possession and forcibly collecting rent from the tenants, which compelled the plaintiff to file the suit seeking declaration of ownership and pro-

tection of her possession.

6. Defendant No.2 did not contest the suit. Defendant No.1, Smt. Sheetalwati, filed a written statement denying the marital status of the plaintiff and asserted that Shanti Devi was merely engaged as a cook by Rattan Lal Jain. While admitting the marriage of Rattan Lal Jain with Chhoti Bai and the fact that no issue was born from that wedlock, defendant No.1 propounded a Will dated 02.03.1961 allegedly executed by Rattan Lal Jain in favour of Chhoti Bai, and an- other Will dated 10.07.1970 allegedly executed by Chhoti Bai in favour of the de- fendants. It was claimed that after the death of Rattan Lal Jain, Chhoti Bai be- came the absolute owner and thereafter, bequeathed the property to the de-

fendants. On this basis, dismissal of the suit was prayed.

7. Necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. The plaintiff led evidence in support of her claim. Despite repeated opportunities, the defen-

dants failed to lead any evidence, and their evidence was closed.

8. Upon appreciation of the material on record, the trial Court re- turned a clear finding that the plaintiff was the widow of Rattan Lal Jain and had succeeded to the suit property as its owner. The documents produced by the plaintiff, namely writings dated 01.05.1941 (PW-6/1) and 09.07.1944 (PW-6/2), authored by Rattan Lal Jain himself, acknowledged the plaintiff as his second wife. The Wills propounded by