IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.02.2025 Veero @ Baljinder Kaur (now deceased)

through her LR ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Jaswant Singh Dhillon (now deceased)

through his LRs and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. I.P.S.Doabia, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-13586-C-2016 Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 19 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 19 days in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned.

RSA- 5230-2016 (O&M)

The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration that plaintiff is owner to the extent of 1/5th share in suit land, with consequential relief of joint possession, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the present appeal is of the year 2016. However, notice has not yet been issued in the same as the matter has been adjourned due to non-appearance of learned counsel for the appellant on 23.07.2018; and at request of learned counsel for the appellant on 10.10.2018, 31.01.2019, 27.05.2019, 23.07.2019, 23.01.2020, 20.12.2023, 06.05.2024 and 18.10.2024.

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

4. The brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that the Dalip Singh-father of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4, died intestate about more than 17 years back, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4 as his only legal heirs/successors as their mother has also died and hence the father of the plaintiff was owner to the extent of 1/2 share alongwith defendant No.5, out of the land as detailed and described in the head note of the plaint. After the death of Dalip Singh, who died intestate, his property to the extent of 1/2 share was inherited in equal shares by the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4. As such plaintiff has become owner to the extent of 1/5th share of the land owned by her father late Dalip Singh. The plaintiff who is an illiterate lady, was not called at any time, in order to sanction the mutation by the Revenue Authorities nor she was having knowledge about the sanctioning of the Inheritance regarding mutation, of her late father Dalip Singh, as the defendant No.1 used to pay some amount of the crops to the extent of the share of the plaintiff i.e. 1/5th share and the plaintiff used to accept the same in a good faith. The defendant No.1 has stopped to pay the amount of crop, after the harvesting of the paddy crop of this year and alleged himself that he is the owner of the land owned by their father late Sh. Dalip Singh and he also alleged that he has got the mutation by impersonating somebody else in place of the plaintiff and as such the act of the defendant No.1 is illegal and is the act of fraud and deception and is not in any manner binding on the legal rights of the plaintiff as an owner. The plaintiff who is an illiterate lady got the papers from the Patwari Halqa on 18.10.2005 and has came to know that the mutation has wrongly been got sanctioned by defendant No.1 in his name only, after excluding the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 4, whereas father of the plaintiff had not executed any Will while having sound disposing mind during his lifetime nor he has transferred the land through any registered document in favour of defendant No.1. As such, the mutation is in the name of defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void and is not binding on the plaintiff, as an owner to the extent of her 1/5th share out of the 1/2 share of the total land. The plaintiff has requested the defendant No.1 to admit her claim as owner and to handover the possession to the extent of her share