SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
PARSIN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS(DECEASED) – Appellant
Versus
AMRINDER SINGH AND ORS – Respondent
RSA 979/2020



108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-979-2020 (O&M)

Decided on : 17.03.2022

Parsin Kaur (deceased) through LRs

. . . Appellant(s)

Versus

Amrinder Singh and others

. . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. KBS Mann, Advocate

for the appellant(s).

****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

, J. (Oral)

Appellant-defendant–Parsin Kaur through her legal

representatives has filed the present appeal having lost in both the Courts

below.

Respondent-plaintiff Amrinder Singh through his mother filed

a civil suit bearing No.CS/114/2016 against Parsin Kaur for joint possession

by way of declaration, and permanent injunction with respect to the land in

dispute measuring 14 Kanals, as detailed below, on the basis of Will dated

01.08.2010, executed by his father Malagar Singh in his favour:

(A)

Land measuring 7 Kanals 1/18 share out of total land 125

Kanals 19 marlas bearing Khewat No. 119/104 Khatoni No.

169 to 172 Rect. No. 14 Killa No. 7/3 (2-4) 8 (5-2) Rect. No.

10 Killa No. 10/1 min (0-13) 19 min (1-9) 21(8-0), Rect No.

11 Killa No. 23 ((2-2) 24/1 (7-2) 24/2 (8-0) Khasra No. 90

(13-10) Rect No. 10 Killa No. 19 min (6-11) 20/1 min (2-

19) Rect. No. 15 Killa No. 1(9-0) 2(8-0) 9(8-2) 10(6-2)

Khasra No. 92 min (4-8).

(B)

Land measuring 0 Kanals 1 Marlas 1/6 share out of total 6

marlas bearing Khewat No. 172/158 Khatoni No. 225 Rect

SONIA BURA

2022.04.19 17:44

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

chandigarh

RSA-979-2020 (O&M)

- 2 -

No. 11 Killa No. 14/8 (0-1) 37 (0-5).

(C)

Land measuring 0 Kanals 14 Marlas 1/6 share out of total 10

Kanals 8 Marlas bearing Khewat No. 049 Khatoni Rect No.

72 Rect No. 27 Killa No. 9/2 (4-17) and 10(5-11).

(D)

Land mearuing 0 Kanals 13 Marlas 1/6 share out of total

land 4 Kanals 1 Marlas bearing Khewat No. 49 Khatoni No.

73 Rect No. 27 Killa No. 8/3 (4-1)

(E)

Land measuring 0 Kanals 17 marlas bearing Khewat No. 49

Khatoni No. 74 Rect No. 27 Killa No. 8/1 (2-11).

(F)

Land measuring 0 Kanals 7 Marlas 1/6 share out of total land

measuring 2 Kanals 4 Marlas bearing Khewat No.49 Khatoni

No. 75 Killa No. 8/2 (0-11) and 9/1 (1-14) situated in the

revenue area of village Malwala, Tehsil Malout, District Sri

Muktsar Sahib.

(G)

Land measuring 3 kanals 8 marlas 1/6 share out of total land

measuring 20 Kanals 8 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.

177/178 Khatoni No. 292 Rect No. 27 Killa No. 14/2 (2-9)

15 (7-11) 16 (8-0) 24/2 (0-5) and 25/1 (2-3) situated in the

revenue area of village Katorewala Tehsil Malout, District

Sri Muktsar Sahib as per Jamabandi for the year 2011-12.

Parties hereinafter shall be referred to on the basis of their

original positions in the suit.

In brief, the case set out by the plaintiff was that his father

Malagar Singh, who died on 08.02.2011, during his lifetime, executed a

Will in his favour out of love and affection. Defendant – Parsin Kaur, is the

mother of Malagar Singh. After the death of Malagar Singh, mutation of

inheritance was sanctioned on the basis of natural succession to the extent

of 1/3rd share each, in the name of plaintiff, his mother Sarabjit Kaur and

mother of Malagar Singh i.e. defendant – Parsin Kaur, by the Assistant

SONIA BURA

2022.04.19 17:44

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

chandigarh

RSA-979-2020 (O&M)

- 3 -

Collector Grade-I, Malout. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the

mutation of inheritance was dismissed by the Collector, however, the appeal

against the order of the Collector was still pending before the Divisional

Commissioner concerned. Defendant taking advantage of the illegal

mutation was trying to alienate the suit property. Even though the

defendant was requested not to do so and admit the claim of possession of

the plaintiff to the suit land, however, she refused to do so. Hence, the civil

suit in question was instituted by the plaintiff.

Defendant on the other hand, submitted that the unregistered

Will dated 01st August,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top