CM No. 2057-C of 2014 in/and

RSA No. 2992 of 1980 (O & M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

*****

CM No. 2057-C of 2014 in/and

RSA No. 2992 of 1980 (O & M)

Date of decision : 28.2.2014

Gurnam Kaur

........Applicant/Appellant

Vs.

Hari Singh and others

.........Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh

Present:-

Mrs. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate with

Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant

---

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)

CMs No. 2056-57-C of 2014 :

The above mentioned applications have been filed for

restoration of appeal and for condonation of delay in filing the restoration

application.

The main appeal was dismissed for non prosecution on

8.2.2006. Application for restoration of the appeal has been filed after a

delay of 2894 days. Explanation given for condonation of delay is not

believable to restore the case. However, on request made, case is taken up

for final disposal on merits.

RSA No. 2992 of 1980 (O & M) :

Appellant-Gurnam Kaur and respondents No.1 and 3 Hari

Singh and Amar Kaur @ Ambo are the daughters and son of respondent

No.2-Gurbachan Singh. Respondent No.2 executed a sale deed on

Kumar Ashwani

2014.03.27 14:47

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CM No. 2057-C of 2014 in/and

RSA No. 2992 of 1980 (O & M)

-2-

19.10.1977 of land measuring 29 kanals 7 marlas in favour of the

appellant. The said sale deed was put to challenge by respondent No.1. It

was specific stand of respondent No.1 that the land sold was the

coparcenary property of his father Gurbachan Singh, who has inherited the

same from his father Fauja Singh. By stating as above, it was averred that

Gurbachan Singh-Respondent No.2 being Karta of the family, had no

authority to sell the land in favour of his daughter-the appellant.

Despite service, the appellant did not appear to defend the

suit. In a way all the averments made by respondent No.1/plaintiff, left

unrebutted.

To prove his case, respondent No.1 brought on record oral as

well as documentary evidence. The trial Court was not satisfied. It was

observed that respondent No.1/plaintiff has failed to prove that the sale

deed dated 19.10.1977 was the result of fraud or undue coercion. It was

further held that respondent No.1/plaintiff had failed to prove that the land

sold was the coparcenary property and Gurbachan Singh-respondent No.2

was Karta of the family. Suit was dismissed on 31.3.1979.

Respondent No.2 went in appeal, which was allowed by the

Appellate Court on 9.10.1980. It was found as a matter of fact, that there

was sufficient evidence on record to prove that the land in dispute, sold to

the appellant, was the coparcenary property and Gurbachan Singh-

respondent No.2 had inherited it from Fauja Singh-his father.

To say so, reference was made to copies of the Jamabandies

and entries made in the pedigree table, showing above said fact. After

perusing the evidence on record, the Appellate Court has observed as

Kumar Ashwani

2014.03.27 14:47

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CM No. 2057-C of 2014 in/and

RSA No. 2992 of 1980 (O & M)

-3-

under when allowing the appeal :-

“5.

The Sale deed, certified copy of which is Ex.P1, is on

the file and it purports to have been executed by Gurbachan

Singh for the land measuring 25 K-10M for a sum of ` 9000/-

in favour of Gurnam Kaur defendant on 19.10.1977. The

plaintiff claims that the land, covered by the sale deed, is

ancestral and he is coparcener in the Joint Hindu Family,

which consists of his father and himself and that his father

could not have alienated this land without any legal necessity.

The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed

to prove that the suit land was ancestral and proceeded to held

that the sale deed was not due to undue influence by Gurnam

Kaur on Gurbachan Singh and that he had legal necessity to

sell the suit land. The findings of the learn