IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 20.02.2025 Date of decision: 28.02.2025 LAKHI RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

..Appellants Versus INDER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for respondents.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Brief facts of the case:-

1.1 The plaintiffs assail the correctness of First Appellate Court’s judgment, which in turn has reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court. The question is with regard to inheritance of property left behind by late Sh. Ramji Lal, who was unmarried and issueless. In the year 1979, vide mutation No.1892, his property was divided amongst three persons in the following manner, 1/3rd share was mutated in favour of Sh. Hukam Chand, adopted son of Sh. Brahmanand, 1/3rd share was mutated in favour of Sh. Makhan son of Sh. Krishan Chand and 1/3rd share was mutated in favour of Sh. Uday Singh son of Sh. Shiv Chand.

1.2 At this stage, it will be appropriate to draw a family tree to understand their inter se relationship of the parties Baldeva Brahmanand Kishan Chand Shiv Chand Ramji Lal Parbati Mahadevi Udey Kaur Lali (died issueless in 1959)

Hukam Chand Hari Ram Sarti Mewal w/o Gori Jailal died in Makhan Ramchand Kansi time of Ramji Lal Raghbir Puran Adopted Adopted Ude Singh Lachmi Incha Rambux Rampat Laxmi Rajender Risalo Santra Narain (xx)

Lakhi Kaushalya Sewti Rambux Tara Dayanand Vidya Manphool Sant Ram Ramo Sarbati Kapuri Khazani Raghbir Mange Inder Om Parkash Kala Daya Savitri Maya Krishna & Bala AtmaRam Ganga Ram Ramkaran Prem Kaur Sarjo Pataso Somdutt Mohinder Parkash Satwati Sumitra Narbada Widow

1.3 The plaintiffs are Sh. Lakhi Ram son of Sh. Inchha Ram son of Sh. Shiv Chand and Sh. Sant Ram son of Sh. Ram Bux son of Sh. Shiv Chand. They claim that Sh. Ramji Lal was owner of 53 kanal and 19 marla land, who died in or about 1959, hence, the property came to the shares of various persons in accordance with Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short ‘1956 Act’).

1.4 The defendants have filed separate written statements. Defendant No.7 Sh. Inder Singh claimed that Sh. Ramji Lal died prior to coming into force of 1956 Act. Sh. Inchaa Ram and Sh. Ram Bux never cultivated the land, whereas, Sh. Ude, defendant No.1 has been exclusively cultivating 1/3rd share. Defendant No.20 and 27 claim that Sh. Ramji Lal entered into a family settlement during his lifetime and gave 1/3rd share to Sh. Hukam Chand, adopted son of Sh. Brahamand, 1/3rd share to Sh.

Makhan Lal son of Sh. Krishan Chand and 1/3rd share to Sh. Shiv Chand.

1.5 Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit, however, the First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment of the trial Court on the following grounds:-

i. Sh. Inchaa Ram and Sh. Ram Bux died before Sh.

Ramji Lal.

ii. The plaintiffs have challenged the mutation of 1/3rd share in favour of Sh. Ude Singh but not challenged the mutation in favour of Sh. Makhan Lal and Sh. Hukam Chand, hence, the suit is not maintainable.

iii. The defendants have successfully proved that there was a family settlement arrived at during the lifetime of Sh. Ramji Lal, dividing the property.

1.6 This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

2. Analysis and Discussion:-

2.1 First of all the findings of the First Appellate Court that Sh. Inchha Ram and Sh. Ram Bux died prior to Sh. Ramji Lal is result of overlooking the material evidence. Death certificates of Sh. Inchha Ram and Ram Bux have been produced, which prove that Sh. Ram Bux died on

07.10.1976, whereas, Sh. Inchha Ram died on 19.02.1979.

2.2 It may be noted here that trial Court held that Sh. Ramji Lal died in 1958-1959 after coming into force of ‘1956 Act’. The First Appellate Court has not set aside that finding. Learned counsel for the respondent has not challenged the correctness of tri