RSA-3800-2012

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

(1)

Regular Second Appeal No.3800 of 2012 (O&M)

(2)

Regular Second Appeal No.4383 of 2012 (O&M)

Date of Decision: January 17, 2019.

Rashpal Kaur

..........APPELLANT(s).

VERSUS

Neermal Suri and others

........RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate

for the appellant (s).

Ms. Rishma Verma, Advocate

for the respondent No.1.

*******

SURINDER GUPTA, J.

Both the above captioned appeals have been taken up together

as these belong to property of Gurbachan Singh father of appellant Rashpal

Kaur and respondent No.1 Neermal Suri. While Rashpal Kaur-appellant

filed suit (Civil Suit No.57 of 2009) seeking declaration of her title over the

suit property on the basis of Will of her father dated 16.02.1995 and

claiming the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from

interfering in her possession; Neermal Suri-respondent filed suit (Civil Suit

No.142/2008) claiming title of the suit property on the basis of sale deed

dated 26.03.1998 executed in his favour by his father.

The Courts below held the Will dated 16.02.1995 executed by

Gurbachan Singh in favour of Rashpal Kaur as a legal and valid document.

SACHIN MEHTA

2019.01.21 16:43

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

RSA-3800-2012

-2-

The sale deed executed by Gurbachan Singh in favour of respondent

Neermal Singh was also held to be validly executed. Gurbachan Singh died

on 16.06.2000. As he had executed the sale deed dated 26.03.1998

regarding the suit property in favour of his son Neermal Suri, as such, the

claim of title raised by appellant Rashpal Kaur over the suit property was

discarded and the suit of respondent Neermal Singh seeking possession of

the suit property was decreed.

Rashpal Kaur filed appeals against the judgment and decree

passed by the lower Court, which were also dismissed. Not satisfied, she

has filed the above captioned appeals, challenging the judgment and decree

passed by the Courts below.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit

property was owned by Gurbachan Singh. Neermal Suri and Avtar Singh

sons of Gurbachan Singh are living abroad. Brother of appellant namely

Neermal Suri had never contributed for the purchase of the suit property by

Gurbachan Singh. At the time of execution of alleged sale deed dated

26.03.1998, no consideration was paid, as such, it is a fake document. The

Courts below have failed to look into the circumstances leading to

execution of the sale deed. Due to strained relations with her husband,

marriage of the appellant got dissolved by way of decree of divorce. In

order to assure future of his daughter and grand children, Gurbachan Singh

executed the Will dated 16.02.1995 in her favour thereby bequeathing suit

property to her. She was living with her father and serving him. The Courts

below have not taken note of the fact that Neermal Suri was in dominant

position and sale deed in question is result of his influence over his father

SACHIN MEHTA

2019.01.21 16:43

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

RSA-3800-2012

-3-

Gurbachan Singh. After its execution, sale deed was kept concealed and no

efforts were made to get the revenue record corrected in his name. It was

disclosed by Neermal Suri after death of his father only when suit was filed

by the appellant. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the

observations of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Akash Deep

Vs. Surinder Dhir (RSA No.1423-2011, decided on 25.05.2011), wherein a

sale deed got executed by exercising undue influence was ordered to be set

aside.

The case of the appellant is that she was living with, serving

and looking after her father.