IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

104 (2 cases) RSA No.4207 of 2004(O&M)

Reserved on:20.02.2026 Pronounced on:09.03.2026 Uploaded on:10.03.2026 Kirpal Singh ... Appellant Versus (cid:1)

Surinder Kaur and others ...Respondents(cid:1)

2. CR-5793-2004(O&M)

Kirpal Singh ... Petitioner(cid:1)

Versus(cid:1)

(cid:1)

Surinder Kaur and others ...Respondents(cid:1)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate,(cid:1)

for the appellant in RSA-4207-2004 and(cid:1)

for petitioner in CR-5793-2004.(cid:1)

Mr. Mohd. Yusaf, Advocate,(cid:1)

for the respondent(s) in both the cases.(cid:1)

***

(cid:1)

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the regular second appeal bearing No.4207 of 2004 and civil revision No.5793 of 2004, as they arise out of similar cause of action. Defendant No.1 is the appellant before this Court in regular second appeal and the petitioner in the revision petition, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2004 passed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated

23.10.2001 of the learned trial Court was partly allowed and while reversing the finding of learned trial Court on issues No.1 and 5-A, the learned 1^st Appellate Court had discarded the Will dated 23.02.1990, Ex.D1 and granted succession certificate to the extent of 1/6^th share each in favour of class-1 heirs of Kartar Singh. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from RSA No.4207 of 2004 and the parties are being referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial Court.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the land in dispute as described in the head note of the plaint was owned and possessed by Kartar Singh, father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.1, and husband of plaintiff No.5. Kartar Singh died, and after his death, his entire estate was inherited by the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in six equal shares. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are living abroad, and after the death of Kartar Singh, the plaintiffs have been in exclusive possession of the land in dispute through their attorney, Gurdev Singh. Defendant No.1 started threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute through his attorney, defendant No.2-Dhian Singh. The plaintiffs requested the said defendants on several occasions to admit their claim, but the defendants had flatly refused to do so, leading the institution of the present suit.

3. Upon issuance of summons, defendants appeared through counsel and contested the suit by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land in dispute, as deceased Kartar Singh, during his life-time bequeathed his entire estate in favour of defendant No.1 by virtue of a Will dated 23.02.1990 in lieu of services rendered to him by defendant No.1, and thus defendant No.1 is the owner in possession of the suit land. It was pleaded that Gurdev Singh is not the duly authorized attorney of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit. Further, it was objected that the suit was bad for misjoinder of Dhian Singh as defendant No.2, who was not acting in his personal capacity but as attorney of defendant No.1. The suit was further stated to be not maintainable as the plaintiffs are not in possession of the land in dispute and defendant No.1 is in possession thereof through his attorney, defendant No.2. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands and therefore, they were not entitled to discretionary relief as sought for, and in the garb of the present suit, they attempted to take forcible possession of the suit land. By way of counter-claim, it was pleaded that in case, during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 is dispossessed, a decree for declaration to the effect that defendant No.1 is the o