O&M) Mukhtiar Kaur v. Dalip Singh and Others Dalip Singh and Others
Case Details
RSA-2571-1997 1997 (O&M) and connected cases -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- Reserved on:-26.08.2025 Reserved on: Date of Decision : 04.09.2025 Date of Decision : 1. RSA-2571 2571-1997 (O&M) Mukhtiar Kaur ....Appellant VERSUS Dalip Singh and Others Dalip Singh and Others ....Respondents 2. RSA-257 2572-1997 (O&M) Mukhtiar Kaur ....Appellant VERSUS Dalip Singh and Others Dalip Singh and Others ....Respondents 3. RSA-257 2573-1995 (O&M) Mukhtiar Kaur ....Appellant VERSUS Sadhu Singh ....Respondents 4. RSA-257 2573-1997 (O&M) Mukhtiar Kaur ....Appellant VERSUS Dalip Singh and Others Dalip Singh and Others ....Respondents 5. RSA-257 2574-1995 (O&M) Mukhtiar Kaur ....Appellant Sadhu Singh ....Respondents VERSUS TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 1997 (O&M) and connected cases -2- 6. RSA-257 2574-1997 (O&M) Mukhtiar Kaur ....Appellant VERSUS Dalip Singh and Others Dalip Singh and Others ....Respondents 7. RSA-257 2575-1995 (O&M) Mukhtiar Kaur ....Appellant VERSUS Balbir Singh ....Respondent 8. RSA-257 2576-1995 (O&M) Mukhtiar Kaur ....Appellant VERSUS Balbir Singh ....Respondent 9. RSA-3116 3116-1997 (O&M) and Another Dalip Singh and Another ....Appellants VERSUS Mukhtiar Kaur and Others Mukhtiar Kaur and Others ....Respondents 10. RSA-311 3118-1997 (O&M) and Another Dalip Singh and Another ....Appellants VERSUS r and Others Mukhtiar Kaur and Others ....Respondents 11. RSA-3194 3194-1997 (O&M) Dalip Singh and and Others ....Appellants Mukhtiar Kaur and Others Mukhtiar Kaur and Others ....Respondents VERSUS TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 1997 (O&M) and connected cases -3-
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate and Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate For the appellants in RSA Nos-2571 For the appellants in RSA Nos 2573-1995, 2573-1997, 2574-1995, 2574 2573 For respondent No.1 in RSA Nos For respondent No.1 in RSA Nos-3116 3194-1997. 3194 2571-1997, 2572-1997, 1995, 2574-1997 and 3116-1997, 3118-1997 and Mr. Kanwal Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and ahiya, Advocate for the appellants Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate for the appellants Ms. Sheena D 1997 and In RSA Nos-3116-1997, 3118-1997 and In RSA Nos 3194-1997. 3194 -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. Regular Second Appeals has been filed The batch of above-numbered Regular Second Appeals has been filed Regular Second Appeals has been filed The by both sides. P Plaintiffs-Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh three Regular Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh have filed three Regular Second Appeals ppeals bearing Nos. 3116-1997, 3118 1997, 3118-1997, 3194-1997 against against the ourts below insofar as they upheld the validity of concurrent findings of both the Courts below insofar as they upheld the validity of ourts below insofar as they upheld the validity of concurrent findings of both the C Mukhtiar Kaur and the consent decree of 1979, while the defendants-Mukhtiar Kaur and the consent decree of 1979, while the defendants the Wills and the consent decree of 1979, while the defendants and Others have filed have filed eight Regular Second A Regular Second Appeals bearing Nos. RSA-2571 2571- 1997, 2572-1997 1997, 2573-1995, 2573-1997, 2574 1995, 1997, 2574-1995, 2574-1997, 2575-1995, challenging the declaration of the property as ancestral to the extent 2576-1995, challenging the declaration of the property as ancestral to the extent challenging the declaration of the property as ancestral to the extent challenging the declaration of the property as ancestral to the extent recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the recorded by the Appellate ourt and affirmed by the learned First Appellate sets of appeals arise out of common judgments and decrees of the Court. As all sets of appeals arise out of common judgments and decrees of the sets of appeals arise out of common judgments and decrees of the sets of appeals arise out of common judgments and decrees of the learned trial Court and ourt and learned First Appellate C ourt, and the property involved is Court, and the property involved is
Decision
the same, they are being disposed of by , they are being disposed of by this common judgment common judgment of mine. Brief Facts 2. suit Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, sons of Bakhtawar Singh, instituted suit Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, sons of Bakhtawar Singh, instituted Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, sons of Bakhtawar Singh, instituted 1 biswa and 15 seeking declaration that the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas, 0–1 biswa and 15 seeking declaration that the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas, 0 seeking declaration that the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas, 0 oparcenary property bighas 13 biswas, situated in village Langrian, was ancestral coparcenary property bighas 13 biswas, situated in village Langrian, was ancestral c bighas 13 biswas, situated in village Langrian, was ancestral c TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 1997 (O&M) and connected cases -4- in the hands of their father, Bakhtawar Singh, and as such they had acquired rights in the hands of their father, Bakhtawar Singh, and as such they had acquired rights in the hands of their father, Bakhtawar Singh, and as such they had acquired rights in the hands of their father, Bakhtawar Singh, and as such they had acquired rights dated therein by birth as his sons and coparceners. They further prayed that Wills dated therein by birth as his sons and coparceners. They further prayed that therein by birth as his sons and coparceners. They further prayed that favour of 5.6.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh and by his wife Bhagwan Kaur in favour of 5.6.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh and by his wife Bhagwan Kaur in 5.6.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh and by his wife Bhagwan Kaur in , and that the consent decree dated their daughter Mukhtiar Kaur were invalid, and that the consent decree dated , and that the consent decree dated their daughter Mukhtiar Kaur were 27.1.1979 suffered by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar 27.1.1979 suffered by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar 27.1.1979 suffered by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar 27.1.1979 suffered by Bakhtawar Singh and Bhagwan Kaur in favour of Mukhtiar nding upon them as coparceners. Kaur was ineffective and not binding upon them as coparceners. Kaur was ineffective and not bi 3. Mukhtiar Kaur, the contesting defendant, resisted the claim by Mukhtiar Kaur, the contesting defendant, resisted the claim by Mukhtiar Kaur, the contesting defendant, resisted the claim by Mukhtiar Kaur, the contesting defendant, resisted the claim by asserting that the land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas had been purchased by her asserting that the land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas had been purchased by her asserting that the land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas had been purchased by her asserting that the land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas had been purchased by her mother Bhagwan Kaur under sale deed Ex.D1 dated 13.6.1955 and was her self- mother Bhagwan Kaur under sale deed Ex.D1 dated 13.6.1955 and was her self mother Bhagwan Kaur under sale deed Ex.D1 dated 13.6.1955 and was her self mother Bhagwan Kaur under sale deed Ex.D1 dated 13.6.1955 and was her self the plaintiffs could claim no coparcenary rights. She acquired property, in which the plaintiffs could claim no coparcenary rights. She the plaintiffs could claim no coparcenary rights. She acquired property, in which of 5.6.1974 and the subsequent consent further relied upon the registered Wills of 5.6.1974 and the subsequent consent of 5.6.1974 and the subsequent consent further relied upon the registered decree of 1979 as validly conferring exclusive rights upon her. decree of 1979 as validly conferring exclusive rights upon her. decree of 1979 as validly conferring exclusive rights upon her. 4. st Dalip Singh Mukhtiar Kaur, defendant, also filed suit no.744 against Dalip Singh Mukhtiar Kaur, defendant, also filed suit no.744 again Mukhtiar Kaur, defendant, also filed suit no.744 again and others for permanent permanent injunction restraining the defendants injunction restraining the defendants from interfering from interfering in , fully described in heading of the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, fully described in heading of the , fully described in heading of the possession of the plaintiffs the grounds that land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas was owned by plaint on the grounds that land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas was owned by the grounds that land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas was owned by the grounds that land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas was owned by her father Smt.Bhagwan Kaur, mother of the plaintiff, while Bakhatawar Singh, her father Smt.Bhagwan Kaur, mother of the plaintiff, while Bakhatawar Singh, Smt.Bhagwan Kaur, mother of the plaintiff, while Bakhatawar Singh, a family owned 10 bighas 12 biswas of land and same was given to the plaintiff in a family owned 10 bighas 12 biswas of land and same was given to the plaintiff in owned 10 bighas 12 biswas of land and same was given to the plaintiff in settlement. The plaintiff filed suit on basis of family settlement in The plaintiff-Mukhtiar Kaur filed suit on basis of family settlement in filed suit on basis of family settlement in which Bhagwan Kaur and Bakhtawar Singh appeared and filed written statement which Bhagwan Kaur and Bakhtawar Singh appeared and filed written statement which Bhagwan Kaur and Bakhtawar Singh appeared and filed written statement which Bhagwan Kaur and Bakhtawar Singh appeared and filed written statement mutations admitting her claim. The suit was decreed and on the basis of decree, mutations admitting her claim. The suit was decreed and on the basis of decree admitting her claim. The suit was decreed and on the basis of decree no.1064 and 1065 were sanctioned in favour of plaintiff no.1064 and 1065 were sa nctioned in favour of plaintiff and since then plaintiff and since then plaintiff is ndants without any in possession of the land in dispute as owner. However, defendants without any in possession of the land in dispute as owner. in possession of the land in dispute as owner. threatened to dispossess her, hence the suit. right or title threatened to dispossess her, hence the suit. threatened to dispossess her, hence the suit. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 1997 (O&M) and connected cases -5- 5. Defendants in the written statement denied the allegations of the Defendants in the written statement denied the allegations of the Defendants in the written statement denied the allegations of the Defendants in the written statement denied the allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia pleaded that plaintiff never remained in possession of the inter alia pleaded that plaintiff never remained in possession of the alia pleaded that plaintiff never remained in possession of the land in dispute, rather it was after the death Bakhatawar Singh that defendants land in dispute, rather it was after the death Bakhatawar Singh that defendants land in dispute, rather it was after the death Bakhatawar Singh that defendants land in dispute, rather it was after the death Bakhatawar Singh that defendants No.1 & 2 were in possession of the land in dispute. It was further claimed that the No.1 & 2 were in possession of the land in dispute. It was further claimed that the No.1 & 2 were in possession of the land in dispute. It was further claimed that the No.1 & 2 were in possession of the land in dispute. It was further claimed that the parcenary property of the joint Hindu family consisting of parcenary property of the joint Hindu family consisting land in dispute was coparcenary property of the joint Hindu family consisting land in dispute was co Bakhatawar Singh and his sons Dalip Singh, Bhag Singh and defendants were co- Bakhatawar Singh and his sons Dalip Singh, Bhag Singh and defendants were co Bakhatawar Singh and his sons Dalip Singh, Bhag Singh and defendants were co Bakhatawar Singh and his sons Dalip Singh, Bhag Singh and defendants were co such Bakhatawar Singh had no right to transfer the same in sharers in it and as such Bakhatawar Singh had no right to transfer the same in such Bakhatawar Singh had no right to transfer the same in sharers in it and infact no family settlement took place family settlement. It was further alleged that infact no family settlement took place infact no family settlement took place family settlement. It was further allege It was further and the decree is null and void as regards the rights of the plaintiff. It was further and the decree is null and void as regards the rights of the and the decree is null and void as regards the rights of the alleged that the defendants had already filed suit challenging the decree and that the defendants had already filed suit challenging the decree and defendants had already filed suit challenging the decree and be stayed. mutations and as such this suit was liable to be stayed. mutations and as such this suit was liable to 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- following issues: 1) Whether the land in suit is ancestral coparcenary property of the Whether the land in suit is ancestral coparcenary property of the Whether the land in suit is ancestral coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3? OPP plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3? OPP plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3? OPP 2) Whether the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1979 are wrong, Whether the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1979 are wrong, illegal and inoperative? OPP illegal and inoperative? OPP 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4) Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 5) Whether the defendant No.1 has become owner of the suit land Whether the defendant No.1 has become owner of the suit land Whether the defendant No.1 has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession? OPD-1. by adverse possession? OPD 6) Whether Bakhatawar Singh executed a valid registered Will Whether Bakhatawar Singh executed a valid registered Will Whether Bakhatawar Singh executed a valid registered Will 1 dated 05.06.74 in favour of Mukhitar Kaur defendant No.1? OPD-1 dated 05.06.74 in favour of Mukhitar dated 05.06.74 in favour of Mukhitar 7) Whether Bhagwan Kaur executed valid registered Will dated Whether Bhagwan Kaur executed valid registered Will dated Whether Bhagwan Kaur executed valid registered Will dated TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 05.06.74 in favour of defendant No.1? OPD-1. 05.06.74 in favour of defendant No.1? OPD 05.06.74 in favour of defendant No.1? OPD RSA-2571-1997 1997 (O&M) and connected cases -6- 8) s have no cause of action to file the present Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present s have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD suit? OPD 9) Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the suit by their Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the suit by their Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the suit by their own acts and conduct? OPD own acts and conduct? OPD 10) Whether the suit is bad for non 10) joinder of necessary parties? Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD OPD 11) Whether suit regarding land meas 11) uring 15 bighas 3 biswas Whether suit regarding land measuring 15 bighas 3 biswas mentioned in para No.6 of the additional objections in the written mentioned in para No.6 of the additional objections in the written mentioned in para No.6 of the additional objections in the written mentioned in para No.6 of the additional objections in the written statement is hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988? statement is hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988? statement is hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988? statement is hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988? OPD-1 OPD 12) Relief. 12) 7. The parties have led their evidence. The parties have led their evidence. The parties have led their evidence. Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court 8. In the 1 the 1st paragaraph of the judgment of learned trial Court, it has been paragaraph of the judgment of learned trial Court, it has been paragaraph of the judgment of learned trial Court, it has been mentioned that the judgment will dispose of two suits, , because Suit judgment will dispose of two suits, above said, because Suit No.744 of 29.10.92 (filed by Mukhtiar Kaur) was consolidat No.744 of 29.10.92 ed with Suit No.391 of was consolidated with Suit No.391 of 18.08.89 (filed by Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh) 18.08.89 (filed by Dalip vide separate order dated 21.3.94. Singh and Bhag Singh) vide separate order dated 21.3.94 As such, copy of this judgment and decree be also placed on the records of the case As such, copy of this judgment and decree be also placed on the records of the case As such, copy of this judgment and decree be also placed on the records of the case As such, copy of this judgment and decree be also placed on the records of the case file, pertaining to suit No.744 of 29.10.92 (filed by Mukhtiar Kaur) file, pertaining to suit No.744 of 29.10.92 and this (filed by Mukhtiar Kaur) and this rt of said suit. judgment and decree be treated as part of said suit. judgment and decree be treated as pa 9. after hearing the parties and appreciating the The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and appreciating the after hearing the parties and appreciating the The came to the conclusion that the land measuring 10 evidence led by both the parties came to the conclusion that the land measuring 10 came to the conclusion that the land measuring 10 evidence led by both the parties 1 biswa was ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of bighas 12 biswas and 0–1 biswa was ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of 1 biswa was ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of bighas 12 biswas and 0 Bakhtawar Singh, having been inherited by him from his father Dula Singh, who Bakhtawar Singh, having been inherited by him from his father Dula Singh, who Bakhtawar Singh, having been inherited by him from his father Dula Singh, who Bakhtawar Singh, having been inherited by him from his father Dula Singh, who had died prior to the coming into force of the H had died prior to the coming into force of th The e Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 1997 (O&M) and connected cases -7- 5 biswa Court held that the suit land measuring 10 bighas, 12 biswas alongwith 0-5 biswa Court held that the suit land measuring 10 bighas, 12 biswas alongwith 0 Court held that the suit land measuring 10 bighas, 12 biswas alongwith 0 is the ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh, since the is the ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh, since the is the ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh, since the is the ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Bakhtawar Singh, since the d as such, defendants be coparceners of the coparcenary property and as such, defendants be coparceners of the coparcenary property an females cannot be coparceners of the coparcenary property an No.2 and 3 have got no right in the ancestral coparcenary property meansuring 10 No.2 and 3 have got no right in the ancestral coparcenary property meansuring 10 No.2 and 3 have got no right in the ancestral coparcenary property meansuring 10 No.2 and 3 have got no right in the ancestral coparcenary property meansuring 10 bighas 12 biswas being 1/10the share o f land measuring 105 bighas 16 biswas 12 biswas being 1/10the share of land measuring 105 bighas 16 biswas f land measuring 105 bighas 16 biswas Karta and coparcener 5 biswas, Since Bkahtawar Singh being Karta and coparcener 5 biswas, Since Bkahtawar Singh alongwith 0-5 biswas, Since Bkahtawar Singh ith the present plaintiffs, his sons, had got 1/3rd share in the ancesatral share in the ancesatral ith the present plaintiffs, his sons, had got 1/3 alongwith the present plaintiffs, his sons, had got 1/3 coparcenary property, which was inherited by him from his father Dulla Singh had coparcenary property, which was inherited by him from his father Dulla Singh had coparcenary property, which was inherited by him from his father Dulla Singh had coparcenary property, which was inherited by him from his father Dulla Singh had got right to deal with his share and interest by way of transfer or by way of got right to deal with his share and interest by way of transfer or by way of got right to deal with his share and interest by way of transfer or by way of got right to deal with his share and interest by way of transfer or by way of ion as per the provisions of Section 30 of Hindu Succession testamentary disposition as per the provisions of Section 30 of Hindu Succession ion as per the provisions of Section 30 of Hindu Succession testamentary disposit Act, so defendant No.1 has become owner to the extent of his 1/3rd share in the share in the Act, so defendant No.1 has become owner to the extent of his 1/3 Act, so defendant No.1 has become owner to the extent of his 1/3 ancestral coparcenary property by virtue of testamentary disposition by way of ancestral coparcenary property by virtue of testamentary disposition by way of ancestral coparcenary property by virtue of testamentary disposition by way of ancestral coparcenary property by virtue of testamentary disposition by way of registered Will dated 05.06.1974 and the remaining 2/3 registered Will dated 05.06.1974 and the remaining 2/3rd share in 10 bighas 12 share in 10 bighas 12 biswas of land, which is 1/10 share of 105 bighas 16 biswas still remains with the biswas of land, which is 1/10 share of 105 bighas 16 biswas still remains with the biswas of land, which is 1/10 share of 105 bighas 16 biswas still remains with the biswas of land, which is 1/10 share of 105 bighas 16 biswas still remains with the present plaintiffs in equal shares and the Will dated 05.06.1974 cannot be said to present plaintiffs in equal shares and the Will dated 05.06.1974 cannot be said present plaintiffs in equal shares and the Will dated 05.06.1974 cannot be said present plaintiffs in equal shares and the Will dated 05.06.1974 cannot be said be binding or operative qua the 2/3 binding or operative qua the 2/3rd share of t he plaintiffs in the ancestral share of the plaintiffs in the ancestral coparcenary property. So far as the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas is coparcenary property. So far as the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas is coparcenary property. So far as the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas is coparcenary property. So far as the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas is concerned, the same was neither ancestral coparcenary property nor inherited by concerned, the same was neither ancestral coparcenary property nor inherited by concerned, the same was neither ancestral coparcenary property nor inherited by concerned, the same was neither ancestral coparcenary property nor inherited by e said to have Bakhtawar Singh from Dulla Singh nor the present plaintiffs can be said to have Bakhtawar Singh from Dulla Singh nor the present plaintiffs can b Bakhtawar Singh from Dulla Singh nor the present plaintiffs can b any right in the same. any right in the same. 10. It was further held by the learned trial Court that land measuring It was further held by the learned trial Court that land It was further held by the learned trial Court that land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas was the property of Bhagwan Kaur of which she was the absolute bighas 13 biswas was the property of Bhagwan Kaur of which she was the absolute bighas 13 biswas was the property of Bhagwan Kaur of which she was the absolute bighas 13 biswas was the property of Bhagwan Kaur of which she was the absolute d and she has owner with possession to make disposition in the way, she liked and she has owner with possession to make disposition in the way, she like owner with possession to make disposition in the way, she like rightly executed a valid Will dated 05.06.1974 in favour of defendant No.1 has rightly executed a valid Will dated 05.06.1974 in favour of defendant No.1 has rightly executed a valid Will dated 05.06.1974 in favour of defendant No.1 has rightly executed a valid Will dated 05.06.1974 in favour of defendant No.1 has become exclusive owner in possession of the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 become exclusive owner in possession of the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 become exclusive owner in possession of the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 become exclusive owner in possession of the suit land measuring 15 bighas 13 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 1997 (O&M) and connected cases -8- biswas out of the suit property, with which the present plaintiffs have got no right, biswas out of the suit property, with which the present plaintiffs have got no right, biswas out of the suit property, with which the present plaintiffs have got no right, biswas out of the suit property, with which the present plaintiffs have got no right, . Similarly, by virtue of the concern or interest in any manner, whatsoever. Similarly, by virtue of the concern or interest in any manner, whatsoever concern or interest in any manner, whatsoever registered Will dated 05.06.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh in favour of registered Will dated 05.06.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh in favour of registered Will dated 05.06.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh in favour of registered Will dated 05.06.1974 executed by Bakhtawar Singh in favour of defendant No.1 is also valid and legal to the extent of his coparcenary interest to defendant No.1 is also valid and legal to the extent of his coparcenary interest to defendant No.1 is also valid and legal to the extent of his coparcenary interest to defendant No.1 is also valid and legal to the extent of his coparcenary interest to the tune of his 1/3rd share in the ancestral coparcenary property and the present share in the ancestral coparcenary property and the present share in the ancestral coparcenary property and the present the tune of his 1/3 plaintiffs are owners in joint possession with defendant No.1 to the extent of their plaintiffs are owners in joint possession with defendant No.1 to the extent of their plaintiffs are owners in joint possession with defendant No.1 to the extent of their plaintiffs are owners in joint possession with defendant No.1 to the extent of their 2/3rd share in the coparcenary property, except 1/3 share in the coparcenary property, except 1/3rd share of Bakhtawar Singh, of share of Bakhtawar Singh, of share in the coparcenary property, except 1/3 come owner in joint possession with the plaintiffs which defendant No.1 has become owner in joint possession with the plaintiffs come owner in joint possession with the plaintiffs which defendant No.1 has be along with 1/3rd rd share in 0-5 (0-1) biswas and 10 bighas 12 biswas. With the said biswas and 10 bighas 12 biswas. With the said biswas and 10 bighas 12 biswas. With the said observations, the suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed. observations, the suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed. observations, the suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed. Findings of the First Appellate Court Findings of the First Appellate Court 11. The learned First Appellate Court, The learned First its judgment Appellate Court, in para No.1 of its judgment mentioned that the the judgment will dispose of above mentioned four appeals i.e. C.A judgment will dispose of above-mentioned four appeals i.e. C.A No.75/365, dated 08.08.94-96; C.A No.74/366 dated 08.08.94 No.75/365, dated 08.08.94 96; C.A No.78/413, 96; C.A No.74/366 dated 08.08.94-96; C.A No.78/413, 96. All the appeals are directed 96 and C.A 79/369 dated 22.8.94-96. All the appeals are directed 96 and C.A 79/369 dated 22.8.94 dated 19.08.94-96 and C.A 79/369 dated 22.8.94 against the judgment and decree dated 15.6.1994 of against the judgme 11 Class, ated 15.6.1994 of Sub Judge, 11 Class Malerkotla. 12. ourt, upon independent appraisal of The learned First Appellate Court, upon independent appraisal of ourt, upon independent appraisal of The evidence, affirmed the findings of the learned trial C evidence, affirmed the findings of the ourt with respect to the learned trial Court with respect to the ancestral nature of 10 bighas 12 biswas and 0–1 biswa, a ancestral nature of 10 bighas 12 biswas and 0 nd also with regard to the 1 biswa, and also with regard to the agwan Kaur. It acquired character of 15 bighas 13 biswas in the hands of Bhagwan Kaur. It acquired character of 15 bighas 13 biswas in the hands of Bh self-acquired character of 15 bighas 13 biswas in the hands of Bh as having been duly proved, and the consent decree of 1979 also upheld the Wills as having been duly proved, and the consent decree of 1979 as having been duly proved, and the consent decree of 1979 also upheld the as a valid document of title. Learned First Appellate Court held th as a valid document of title. at appeal of Learned First Appellate Court held that appeal of , succeeds and the judgment and decree of the trial Court Mukhtiar Kaur, defendant, succeeds and the judgment and decree of the trial Court , succeeds and the judgment and decree of the trial Court Mukhtiar Kaur, defendant is set aside to the extent that plaintiffs are owners of ½ share instead of 2/3 share in is set aside to the extent that plaintiffs are owners of ½ share instead of 2/3 share in is set aside to the extent that plaintiffs are owners of ½ share instead of 2/3 share in is set aside to the extent that plaintiffs are owners of ½ share instead of 2/3 share in TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 1997 (O&M) and connected cases -9- the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas i.e. 1/10th share of 105 bighas 16 biswas share of 105 bighas 16 biswas the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas i.e. 1/10 the land measuring 10 bighas 12 biswas i.e. 1/10 and in 1 biswas i.e. 1/5the share of five biswas of land. The suit of the plaintiffs and in 1 biswas i.e. 1/5the share of five biswas of land. The suit of the plaintiffs and in 1 biswas i.e. 1/5the share of five biswas of land. The suit of the plaintiffs and in 1 biswas i.e. 1/5the share of five biswas of land. The suit of the plaintiffs regarding the remaining land is dismissed because Mukhtiar Kaur has become regarding the remaining land is dismissed because Mukhtiar Kaur has become regarding the remaining land is dismissed because Mukhtiar Kaur has become regarding the remaining land is dismissed because Mukhtiar Kaur has become tion has also owner of the same. The suit of Mukhtiar Kaur for permanent injunction has also owner of the same. The suit of Mukhtiar Kaur for permanent injunc owner of the same. The suit of Mukhtiar Kaur for permanent injunc sharer in the land in dispute and no been rightly dismissed because she is co-sharer in the land in dispute and no sharer in the land in dispute and no been rightly dismissed because she is co injunction can be granted against Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, who are also co- injunction can be granted against Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, who are also co injunction can be granted against Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, who are also co injunction can be granted against Dalip Singh and Bhag Singh, who are also co sharers. Thus, the remaining three appeals are without any merit and are dismissed. sharers. Thus, the remaining three appeals are without any merit and are dismissed. sharers. Thus, the remaining three appeals are without any merit and are dismissed. sharers. Thus, the remaining three appeals are without any merit and are dismissed. 13. Against the said concurrent findings, 11 Regular Second Appeals Against the said concurrent findings, 11 Regular Second Appeals Against the said concurrent findings, 11 Regular Second Appeals Against the said concurrent findings, 11 Regular Second Appeals en instituted before this Court, 8 by Mukhtiar Kaur being RSA Nos. RSA en instituted before this Court, 8 by Mukhtiar Kaur being RSA Nos. have been instituted before this Court, 8 by Mukhtiar Kaur being RSA Nos. RSA- 2571-1997, 257 2572-1997, 2573-1995, 2573-1997, 2575- 1997, 2574-1995, 2574-1997, 2575 1995, 2576-1995 1995, and 3 by Dalip Singh being RSA Nos. 1997, being RSA Nos.3116-1997, 3118-1997 3194-1997. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties Submissions of learned counsel for the parties Submissions of learned counsel for the parties 14. , it has been contended that the plaintiffs On behalf of the plaintiffs, it has been contended that the plaintiffs , it has been contended that the plaintiffs On behalf of the plaintiff had proved on record the excerpts as Ex.P1. The excerpts were prepared on the had proved on record the excerpts as Ex.P1. The excerpts were prepared on the had proved on record the excerpts as Ex.P1. The excerpts were prepared on the had proved on record the excerpts as Ex.P1. The excerpts were prepared on the basis of an application dated 08.01.1992 moved by the plaintiffs before the learned basis of an application dated 08.01.1992 moved by the plaintiffs before the learned basis of an application dated 08.01.1992 moved by the plaintiffs before the learned basis of an application dated 08.01.1992 moved by the plaintiffs before the learned wed, the learned trial Court got the trial Court. After the said application was allowed, the learned trial Court got the wed, the learned trial Court got the trial Court. After the said application was allo excerpts prepared. The production of said excerpts was never objected to by the excerpts prepared. The production of said excerpts was never objected to by the excerpts prepared. The production of said excerpts was never objected to by the excerpts prepared. The production of said excerpts was never objected to by the defendants. Hence, the excerpts are required to be read in evidence. defendants. Hence, the excerpts are required to be read in evidence. defendants. Hence, the excerpts are required to be read in evidence. 15. record Further, it has been contended that the plaintiffs had placed on record Further, it has been contended that the plaintiffs had placed on Further, it has been contended that the plaintiffs had placed on the jamabandies for the relevant period so as to prove the nature of property. the jamabandies for the relevant period so as to prove the nature of property. the jamabandies for the relevant period so as to prove the nature of property. the jamabandies for the relevant period so as to prove the nature of property. for the , even if the excerpts are ignored, the Jamabandies can be considered for the , even if the excerpts are ignored, the Jamabandies can be considered Hence, even if the excerpts are ignored, the Jamabandies can be considered purpose of determining the nature of property. purpose of determining the nature of property. 16. Furthermore, DW-1 Bhagwan Kaur ( Furthermore, widow of Bakhtaur Singh), had 1 Bhagwan Kaur (widow of Bakhtaur Singh), had examination. The said fact admitted the nature of property as ancestral in her cross-examination. The said fact admitted the nature of property as ancestral in her cross admitted the nature of property as ancestral in her cross TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2571-1997 1997 (O&M) and connected cases -10- defendant no.1) in his was also admitted by Satnam Singh (husband of Mukhtiar-defendant no.1) in his was also admitted by Satnam Singh (husband of Mukhtiar was also admitted by Satnam Singh (husband of Mukhtiar ingh has also examination. Further Jaswant Kaur daughter of Bakhtaur Singh has also examination. Further Jaswant Kaur daughter of Bakhtaur S cross-examination. Further Jaswant Kaur daughter of Bakhtaur S admitted the factum of property being ancestral in nature. admitted the factum of property being ancestral in nature. admitted the factum of property being ancestral in nature. 17. contended that the courts below erred in holding that the It is further contended that the courts below erred in holding that the contended that the courts below erred in holding that the It is further were proved, for under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a W were proved, for under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, Wills were proved, for under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a Will must be proved by the evidence of at least one attesting witness, and in the present must be proved by the evidence of at least one attesting witness, and in the present must be proved by the evidence of at least one attesting witness, and in the present must be proved by the evidence of at least one attesting witness, and in the present case though Gurnam Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, was examined, but case though Gurnam Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, was examined, case though Gurnam Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, was examined, but he . The deed writer turned hostile and did not support the due execution of the Wills . The deed writer turned hostile and did not support the due execution of the turned hostile and did not support the due execution of the their testimony Registrar are not attesting witnesses, and, therefore, their testimony Registrar are not attesting witnesses, and and the Sub-Registrar are not attesting witnesses, and cannot substitute the statutory requirement. cannot substitute the statutory requirement. 18. It was further urged that the consent decree of 1979 could not bind It was further urged that the consent decree of 1979 could not bind It was further urged that the consent decree of 1979 could not bind It was further urged that the consent decree of 1979 could not bind erate as a document of coparcenary property, and being unregistered, could not operate as a document of coparcenary property, and being unregistered, could not op coparcenary property, and being unregistered, could not op transfer of immovable property. Learned counsel further stressed that since Dulla transfer of immovable property. Learned counsel further stressed that since Dul transfer of immovable property. Learned counsel further stressed that since Dul transfer of immovable property. Learned counsel further stressed that since Dul Singh, the father of Bakhtawar Singh, had died prior to 1956, the property Singh, the father of Bakhtawar Singh, had died prior to 1956, the property Singh, the father of Bakhtawar Singh, had died prior to 1956, the property Singh, the father of Bakhtawar Singh, had died prior to 1956, the property inherited by Bakhtawar Singh was ancestral in his hands qua his sons under the inherited by Bakhtawar Singh was ancestral in his hands qua his sons under t inherited by Bakhtawar Singh was ancestral in his hands qua his sons under t inherited by Bakhtawar Singh was ancestral in his hands qua his sons under t Mitakshara law then in force, as laid down in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur Mitakshara law then in force, as laid down in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur Mitakshara law then in force, as laid down in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur Mitakshara law then in force, as laid down in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur