104

2023:PHHC:089729

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-3578-2018

Date of Decision: July 18, 2023

PARAMJIT KAUR @ KARAMJIT KAUR

........ Appellant

Versus

NARINDER SINGH @ MOHINDER PAL & ORS

.......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:

Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the appellant.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

1.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the

judgment and decree dated 27.02.2015 passed by the Civil Judge,

Junior Division, Patiala as well as the judgment and decree dated

03.11.2017 passed by Ld. Addl. District Judge, Patiala whereby a suit

for declaration qua ownership to the extent of 2/7^th share out of the

estate left by Bachan Singh, filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff

being her daughter has been dismissed.

2.

In the present case, the dispute pertains to the estate of

Bachan Singh, the appellant-plaintiff being her daughter filed a suit for

declaration, claiming herself to be owner in joint possession of its 2/7^th

share. It was pleaded in the plaint that the suit land in the hands of

Bachan Singh was ancestral in nature and thus he had no right to deal

with the same as regards the share of the appellant-plaintiff. It was

further pleaded that respondents No.1 and 2 herein who happened to

be brothers of the appellant-plaintiff got a transfer deed dated

25.08.2007 executed from Bachan Singh qua the suit property which

was result of a fraud. The appellant-plaintiff also set up a Will dated

TEJWINDER SINGH

2023.07.21 16:29

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:089729

RSA-3578-2018

-2-

11.03.2010 executed by her father qua his 1/7^th share thereby claiming

herself to be owner to the extent of 2/7^th share.

3.

Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written

statement. Defendant No.1 i.e. the father of the appellant appeared

before the trial Court and admitted the factum of suit land being

ancestral, further stating that the defendants No.2-6 took advantage of

his old age besides weak mental condition and got the transfer deed

executed from him under the pretext of getting a general power of

attorney. On the other hand defendants No.2-6 filed a separate written

statement questioning the maintainability of the suit as well as denying

the nature of the suit property being ancestral. The trial Court vide its

judgment and decree dated 27.02.2015 dismissed the suit filed by the

appellant-plaintiff while recording that the nature of the suit property

being ancestral was never proved. It was also recorded that the father

of the appellant-plaintiff never challenged the transfer deed during his

lifetime and moreover the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff qua Bachan

Singh was got dismissed as withdrawn and thus the appellant-plaintiff

was not entitled for grant of any relief in the suit by claiming it to be

ancestral property. Even the Will set up by appellant-plaintiff was also

discarded.

4.

Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2017,

the appellant-plaintiff filed First Appeal. The same also got dismissed

vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2017.

5.

While assailing the aforementioned judgments and decrees

passed by Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently

submits that Courts below went wrong while ignoring the statement

TEJWINDER SINGH

2023.07.21 16:29

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:089729

RSA-3578-2018

-3-

made by father of appellant/plaintiff-Bachan Singh who appeared in the

Court and categorically stated that execution of transfer deed dated

25.05.2007 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 was a result of fraud as

he only intended to suffer a General Power of Attorney in their favour,

whereas under the garb of it, the transfer deed was got executed.

Learned cou