437

J

P

1m

1

Reqular Second Aopeal

Noe 1365 of

2011 lOSMI

IN THE HIGH

COURT ^{FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB}

S HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

een

Date

of

Decisions

April

1

1 2011

1

Reclular Second Aopeal

Noe 1365

of

2011

OSMI

0

0

Jagwant Singh and

others

Appellants

0

I

VERSUS

C5

I

Tirath Singh and

others

Respondents

Z

a2

r

CORAM

HONBLE

MReJUSTICE MOHINDER

PALe

I

1

Whether Reportersof Local papers may be allowed to

see

Z

the

judgment⁷

2e

To be referred to the Reportersor

not7

3e

Whether

the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest²

Cll

m7

Z

Presentl

Mr Sumeet MahajanSenior Advocate

with

Mr Vaibhav SehgaIAdvocate

a

for the appellants

MsPooja ChopraAdvocate

for the caveatorsrespoodents

MOHINDER

PAL

Ja

This

is

plaintiffs

second

appeal ^whose

suit

for

declaration

and permanentinjunctionⁱⁿ respectof the property ^Itl

dispute fully ^{described in the head note of}

the plaint has

been

dismissed by both the Courts below

Anita

2012.11.29 12:18

True Scanned

Copy Of The

Original

PHHC,Chandigarh

JOYTI RANI

2016.03.28 15:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

1

4 38

4e

ReqularSecond Apoeal

Noe 1365 of

2011 lOSMI

I ^have

heard Mr

Sumeet

Mahajan Senior ^Advocate

assisted by

Mr

Vaibhav Sehgal Advocate

appearing ^for

the

and

Ms

PoojaChopra Advocate

appearing

for

the

and have

gone throughthe

records of

the

case

tr

ShamsherSingh predecessormirnterestof the plaintiffsm

0

0

appellants ^Harnek Singh

since deceased

and representedby

I

his

Iegai representative ^1e

son

Tirath Singh defendante

t5

I

Major Singh

defendantrespondent Nazar

Singh

and Saudagar

Z

werelare ^brothers being ^the

sons of

Gurdial Singh

deceasec

C

Gurdial

Singh^was

the

son

of

Harnam Singh

since deceasedl

I

Harnam Singh was

the

son

of

Mehtaba

lce

decease

The

r

Z

instant

suit

was

filed

by the

for

a

m

declaration to the effect

that

they

are

owners

of

the

Iand

32

Kanals 3215

Marlas

as

115th share of the total

2

Z

Iand measuring 160

Kanals

17

Marlas

and for jointpossessionof

Iand

measuring ²⁰

Kanals

3215

Marlas

out of the suit Iand

fully ^{described in the head note of}

the plaint and

for

permanent

injunctionrestraining^the

from alienating

the suit Iand

in

any ^manner

The

claim ofthe

plaintiffs ^was

based^on the plea that

Gurdial Singh

constituted

a Joint

Hindu

Familycoparcenary

with

his father

Harnam Singh and grandm

father

Mehtaba

Shamsher Singh predecessoreininterestof the

Harnek Singh Major Singh

Nazar Singh and

n e

Anita

2012.11.29 12:18

True Scanned

Copy Of The

Original

PHHC,Chandigarh

JOYTI RANI

2016.03.28 15:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

4 39

f

1

m3

Reqular Second Appeal

Noe 1365 of

2011

08M1

Saudagar

Singh became ^members of

the

Joint

Hindu Familyand

coparceners^on

their birth

and

acquired^interest

in the

Joint

Hindu Family

ancestral

property

Further pleaof

the

plaintiff

appellants

was

that

after

the

death

of Shamsher Singh

his

1

share in the

Joint ^Hindu FamilyProperty ^was

inherited

by the

Q

plaintiffsin equal^shares

Further that

the defendants

had given

0

U

Iand measuring 12

Kanals out of the

abovmentioned

total Iand

I

measunng

160 Kanals

17 Marlas

to

plaintiffappellant ^No l

C

I

JagwantSingh ^{about two} years prior^to the filingof the ^instant

suit

and

thus

No l

was

in possessionof said Iand

Z

being

its owner

It ^was

further pleadedthat

although^{all the}

C

five brothers

namely ^Harnek Singh Shamsher Singh MajorSingh

I

Nazar Singhand SaudagarSingh owned one share

each in the Joint

C3

Z

Hindu Family ancestral coparcenary property but the

entries in the

m

revenue

record

remained in the ^name

of

Gurdial Singh

Taking

advantageof the ^wrong entries in ^{the revenue}

record

the defendants

7

Z

threatened

to

aienate the suit propertywithout

any Iegalnecessity

which

accordingto ^the

necessitated the filingof

the

instant suit

n

the other hand

the

defendants

denied

that

the

suit property

was

Joint Hindu Family

ancestral

coparcenaryproperty

It

was

also

denied

that

Gurdial Singh

constituted

a

Joint Hindu FamiIy^{with his}

father

Harnam Singh

and grandfather Mehtaba and for that ^reason

the

suit pr