02.09.2025 Kamlesh Devi v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
CM-9685-C-2025 in/and RSA-1970-2022 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 CM-9685-C-2025 in/and RSA-1970-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.09.2025 Kamlesh Devi ...Appellant(s) Raghubir Singh and others ...Respondent(s) Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-9685-C-2025 Prayer in this application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is for restoration of the main appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 31.07.2025. 2. 3. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the main appeal is ordered to be restored at its original number and position. 4.
Legal Reasoning
At the request of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the main appeal is taken up on Board today itself for disposal. RSA-1970-2022 (O&M) Present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; DIVYANSHI 2025.09.05 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-9685-C-2025 in/and RSA-1970-2022 - 2 - whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint are that the parties constitute a joint Hindu family and are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The pedigree table of the parties is as under:- Munshi Ram Chandu @ Chanda Singh Raghbir Singh (son) Kailasho Devi (daughter) Kamlesh Devi (daughter) Tejbir Udayveer 3. It was pleaded in the plaint that Munshi Ram was owner in possession of big chunk of land which he inherited after the death of his father Lal Singh. Mutation No. 16 was got sanctioned on 11.06.1919 and he became owner of land measuring 697B-18B. Thus, the land in the hands of Munshi Ram is ancestral. Munshi Ram died intestate. After his death, defendant No.2 Chandu inherited the land and became owner in possession of said land. Plaintiff is real daughter of defendant No.2. It was pleaded that as per Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, she is coparcener by birth in the same manner as that of a son; and thus, she is having right in the coparcenary property in the same manner as that of a son. Plaintiff approached defendant No.2 with a request to DIVYANSHI 2025.09.05 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-9685-C-2025 in/and RSA-1970-2022 - 3 - partition the coparcenary property and to deliver possession of her share however, defendant No.2 refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 realizing that plaintiff would claim right in the coparcenary land, transferred the entire land in favour of his grandsons namely Tejbir and Udayvir by virtue of Relinquishment Deed No. 6739/1 dated 18.11.2013 and Transfer Deed No. 7780/1 dated 22.10.2014. Plaintiff got to know that defendants No.1 and 2 in connivance with each other, had procured a Civil Court decree dated 16.10.1974 vide which Munshi Ram had transferred the land measuring 150K-16M in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of which mutation No.55 dated 05.02.1975 was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1. These facts became known to the plaintiff in November 2015. Plaintiff approached defendants to treat the decree as null and void but they refused to accede her request. Hence, present suit was filed on 21.12.2015. 4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings, and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 01.05.2017. The Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed with costs by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 24.01.2022. Hence, present 2nd Appeal by the plaintiff. 5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff/appellant had placed on record Jamabandis for the years 1919-1920 till 2013-2014 to show that previously the land was owned by DIVYANSHI 2025.09.05 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-9685-C-2025 in/and RSA-1970-2022 - 4 - her great grandfather Lal Singh; and after his death the entire land was inherited by her grandfather Munshi Ram by way of Mutation No. 16 which is proved on record as Ex.P10/1. Therefore, the land in the hands of Munshi Ram was ancestral in nature and he was not competent to transfer it. It is submitted that Munshi Ram being karta of the family without legal necessity, was not authorized to alienate the property in favour of his grandsons by depriving the other legal heirs of their right on the basis of the natural inheritance. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in case the relinquishment deed is set aside, the daughters by the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, are entitled to the share of the properties left by their father. Thus, viewed from any angle finding of court below suffers from patent illegalities and jurisdictional error in the eyes of law. 7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below wrongly non-suited the appellant on the ground of limitation. It is contended that the settled proposition of law is that the case/suit based upon title has no limitation; and therefore, the contrary finding of the courts below in this aspect is not tenable in the eyes of law. 8. It is accordingly prayed that the present Second Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below be set aside. DIVYANSHI 2025.09.05 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-9685-C-2025 in/and RSA-1970-2022 - 5 - 9. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail.I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. 10. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the land in the hands of Munshi Ram was ancestral in nature. However, a perusal of the record of the case shows that categoric finding has been given by the learned lower Appellate Court in para 25 of its judgment dated 24.01.2022 that the plaintiff has been unable to prove that the property in the hands of Munshi Ram was ancestral. As per Jamabandi for the year 1919, the suit land was measured in Bighas and Biswas. However, during consolidation proceedings, the same was converted into Kanals and Marlas. Nothing has been brought on record by the plaintiff to show that the land which formed part of consolidation proceedings, and was previously in Bighas and Biswas, is the suit land in the hands of Munshi Ram now measuring as Kanals and Marlas. No doubt, the plaintiff had brought on record Jamabandis from 1919-1920 till 2013-2014 however, the consolidation documents were not produced, which could prove the contention of the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff was unable to prove that the land which was inherited by Munshi Ram from his father Lal Singh then measuring in Bighas and Biswas, was the same land which he transferred from Civil Court decree dated 16.10.1974 in favour of his son-defendant No.1, which was now in Kanals and Marlas. Thus, it could not be proved that the suit land was ancestral in nature. As such, it cannot be said that Munshi Ram was not competent to transfer the suit land. DIVYANSHI 2025.09.05 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-9685-C-2025 in/and RSA-1970-2022 - 6 - 11. It has further been contended by the plaintiff that she was having share in the suit land being coparcener in view of the provision of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. No doubt, the daughter has now been made coparcener as per the amended provision w.e.f. 09.09.2005. However, in making the above submission, learned counsel for the plaintiff is ignoring the proviso to said Section 6 to the effect that nothing contained in Sub Section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation which had taken place prior to December 2004. Admittedly, in the present case, the judgment and decree is, of the year 1974; at which time plaintiff was not coparcener as the amendment is of the year 2005. Clearly, plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the decree. Therefore, the 1974 decree having been suffered prior to 20.12.2004, cannot be invalidated on the account. 12. Plaintiff has further laid challenge to the decree that defendant No.1 was minor at that time in 1974. However, plaintiff has herself mentioned in para 1 of the plaint that defendant No.1 was minor and, in the care and custody of Chandu/defendant No.2 and that the minor was being represented through his father defendant No.2. Undisputedly, in the title suit No. 857, merely not showing defendant No.2 as minor or represented through natural guardian, it cannot be stated that the suit was filed by the minor. Further, no evidence was brought on record by the plaintiff to prove fraud and misrepresentation. DIVYANSHI 2025.09.05 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-9685-C-2025 in/and RSA-1970-2022 - 7 - 13. It can also not be ignored that the plaintiff is claiming benefit of amendment of 09.09.2005, by instituting the present suit on 21.12.2015. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and findings. 15.
Decision
In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent judgment and decrees of the learned Courts below. 16. 17. 02.09.2025 Divyanshi Present Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2025.09.05 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document