Gurmit Kaur v. Smt. Bachan Kaur

Smt. Bachan Kaur ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Mr. Manish Behl, Advocate for the respondent. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM Nos.11149 & 11150-C of 2007 For the reasons recorded in the applications, delay of 63 days in filing and 6 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CMs stand disposed of. RSA No.3957 of 2007(O&M) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby her suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into her peaceful possession over the suit land and further restraining the defendant-respondent from alienating the suit property has been dismissed. The case of the appellant as pleaded in the civil suit is that the suit land is ancestral property. After the death of Sadhu Singh son of son of Lal Singh, it was inherited by Bachan Kaur, widow, Balkar Singh, Gulzar Singh and Mangal Singh sons of Sadhu Singh in equal shares and mutation was accordingly sanctioned.

On 30.5.2002, Gulzar Singh husband of the plaintiff died issueless and thus, the plaintiff alone is RSA No.3957 of 2007(O&M) 2 entitled to inherit his property. On the basis of these averments, the appellant filed the suit seeking declaration that mutation No.902, entered in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant with regard to the estate of late Gulzar Singh (husband of the appellant) is illegal with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering into her possession and further restraining her from alienating the same. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the suit land was ancestral property and after the death of Sadhu Singh, the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned equally in favour of Bachan Kaur widow of Balkar Singh, Gulzar Singh and Mangal Singh.

It was also admitted that Gulzar Singh died issueless. However, it was denied that after the death of Gulzar Singh, the plaintiff alone is entitled to inherit his property. It was further submitted that according to Hindu Succession Act and Law of Inheritance, a widow as well as mother of the deceased being the Class-I legal heirs are legally entitled to inherit the properties left behind by the deceased in equal shares. Rest of the facts were specifically denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. The Courts below on appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant vide the impugned judgment and decrees. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Undisputedly, Gulzar Singh left behind Gurmit Kaur-appellant his widow and Bachan Kaur-respondent his mother.

The contention of the RSA No.3957 of 2007(O&M) 3 appellant that she alone is entitled to property of Gulzar Singh is misconceived as she did not assert her right to inherit the property to the exclusion of the respondent on the basis of any testamentary succession. Thus, the succession of Gulzar Singh, opens intestate, and in view of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the appellant and the respondent being widow and mother respectively, of deceased Gulzar Singh, are entitled to inherit his property in equal share, both being Class- I heirs. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. January 29, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE