IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

214 RSA-1515-1999 (O&M)

Date of decision: 15.01.2025 Pritam Kaur @ Gurdeep Kaur @ Chhoto @ Marito ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Gurcharan Kaur & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate for the respondents.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court against judgment and decree dated 10.10.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Moga; thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1993 passed by the learned trial Court; whereby the suit for possession filed by the appellant/plaintiff was decreed.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. The appellant is plaintiff; and the respondents are defendants.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for possession as owner to extent of 1/3^rd share. Originally Sukhdev Singh/father-in-law of the plaintiff was owner of land. After his death, the suit property was inherited by his widow-Gurcharan Kaur/defendant No.1/respondent no.1; daughter Jaspal Kaur/defendant No.2/respondent No.4; and sons Rupinder Singh and Gursevak Singh/husband of the plaintiff. The LRs of Rupinder Singh were defendants No.3, 4 and 5/respondents No.2, 3 and 5 herein.

4. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that her husband- Gursevak Singh son of Sukhdev Singh had also died intestate and his interest in the suit land was inherited by the plaintiff being widow of Gursevak Singh. As such she claimed herself to be owner of 1/3^rd of the land in dispute by way of succession. It was alleged that defendant No.1/widow of Sukhdev Singh had taken illegal and unlawful possession of the suit land on the basis of some Will in her favour allegedly executed by Sukhdev Singh. It was pleaded in the plaint that the said Will was forged, fabricated and fictitious document; and the mutation of inheritance of Sukhdev Singh has also been wrongly mentioned in favour of the defendant No.1 on the basis of said Will.

5. The defendants vehemently resisted the suit on various grounds including that the plaintiff had resided with Gursevak Singh for only one-year whereafter, she had left the company of her husband and deserted him which, as per customary law amounted to divorce. It was further pleaded that in fact divorce was also subsequently granted to the plaintiff and Gursevak Singh. Moreover, Sukhdev Singh had executed unregistered Will on 02.09.1993 whereby he bequeathed all his property including the suit land in favour of his wife Gurcharan Kaur (defendant No.1) and the mutation of inheritance of Sukhdev Singh had already been sanctioned on the basis of the said Will with the consent of the other legal heirs of Sukhdev Singh.

6. In replication filed by the plaintiff assertions made in the plaint were reiterated.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: -

“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the land as owner to the extent of 1/3 share of the land in dispute? OPP

2.Whether the pedigree table is not correct? OPD

3. WhetherSukhdev Singh executed a valid will in favour of the defendant? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has taken divorce from Gursewak Singh? OPD (v) Relief.”

8. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 26.11.1993 and decree for joint possession of suit land as owners to the extent of 1/8^th share was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Moga by way of Civil Appeal RT No.80 whereby the appeal was allowed. The decree of the trial Court was set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, present second appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the app