AT CHANDIGARH v. Ranjit Kaur & Anr.

`the first appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeal of the plaintiffs- appellants were dismissed. The appellants had filed a suit against the defendants- respondents for declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession in equal shares of 750/4046 share of land measuring 202 kanals 6 marlas on the basis of a registered Will dated 5.6.1981 and that decree dated 21.12.1983 in favour of the respondents was illegal, null & void. It was pleaded that Inder Singh son of Santokh Singh, who died issueless, had executed Will dated 5.6.1981 voluntarily in their favour and after his death, R.S.A.No.1684 of 2008 (O&M) -2- .... they became owner in possession of the suit property in accordance thereof. It was further pleaded that the respondents had filed civil suit no.581 of

6.12.1983 and got a decree dated 21.12.1983 on the basis of fraud and impersonation because Inder Singh never suffered such a decree. The appellants had averred that the said decree was illegal, null & void and was not binding on their rights and the same being an unregistered document, conferred no proprietary rights in favour of the respondents. The mutation on the basis of the said decree was also questioned. Upon notice, respondent nos. 1 & 3 appeared and filed their separate written statements as well as counter-claims. Respondent no.1 had alleged that Inder Singh had got passed the decree in question on

21.12.1983 and in case, the Court concludes that the same required registration, she was ready to get the same registered as per law. It was pleaded that at the time of sanction of mutation no.2856 on the basis of the said decree on 2.5.1984, the appellants were present and they had admitted to the change in the revenue record and never objected to the same and, therefore, they were estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the instant suit. It was further pleaded that the appellants themselves got the mutation of inheritance of Jaswant Kaur and, therefore, they had no right to challenge the decree in question. It was averred that even if the Will in question was validly executed, the same stood revoked by way of the subsequent decree having been suffered by Inder Singh. It was further averred that she along with other respondents was in possession of the suit property which was given to them in a family settlement and the Will in R.S.A.No.1684 of 2008 (O&M) -3- .... question was a forged document. Respondent no.3 also contested the suit and pleaded that he was natural heir of deceased-Inder Singh and, therefore,he was entitled to the property left by him. He alleged that the appellants and the other respondents had instituted the instant suit in order to defeat his rights. The decree in favour of the other respondents and the Will in favour of the appellants were alleged to be forged documents. The appellants filed reply to the counter-claims and replications to the written statements refuting the claims of the respondents and reiterating the averments made in the plaint. The trial Court framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:-

1. Whether deceased Inder Singh executed a valid Will No.116 of 5.6.81 in favour of plaintiffs as alleged?OPP

2. Whether civil court decree dated 21.12.83 passed in civil suit no.581 of 6.12.83 in favour of defendants against Inder Singh is a result of impersonation and is forged one and same is illegal,null and void on the grounds mentioned in the plaint and as such, the same is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs as alleged?OPP

3. Whether mutation no.2856 dt. 2.5.84 sanctioned in favour of defendants on the basis of said decree is also illegal, null and void and the same is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs as alleged?OPP R.S.A.No.1684 of 2008 (O&M) -4- ....

4. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit land and as such they are entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP

5. Whether plaintiffs have got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

6. Whether the suit is within time?OPP

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD

8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct?OPD 8-A. Whether defendants are entitled to get the decree dated

21.12.83 registered?OPD 8-B. Whether the statement dated 12.12.83 of deceased Inder Singh in civil suit no.581 of 6.12.83 and the written statement in the same civil suit can be treated as a Will of deceased Inder Singh in favour of defendants, if so its effect?OPD 8-C. whether defendant no.3 is entitled for the decree of declaration and possession as prayed for by him in the counter claim?OPD(3)

9. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the decree in question had been validly suffered and, therefore, the suit was dismissed. R.S.A.No.1684 of 2008 (O&M) -5- .... In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court resulting in the filing of the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the findings of the Courts below are perverse and deserve to be set aside. The fore-most question that is to be considered is that the appellants, in their suit, had pleaded fraud and impersonation questioning the decree of 1983. No evidence whatsoever has been produced by them from where it could be concluded that the said decree was a result of fraud. The basis of the decree was a family settlement and the beneficiaries thereof were not alien to the family. Therefore, the question of creating any right for the first time in their favour by way of this decree also did not arise. The relationship of the parties was duly established. Ranjit Kaur is the daughter of Inder Singh's brother – Arjan Singh, whereas Jaswant Kaur is the wife of said Arjan Singh. Since a family settlement existed before the filing of the suit, there was no need to get the decree in question registered and in any eventuality, the Courts below were right in accepting the said decree to be correct in the absence of any proof of fraud and impersonation as alleged by the appellants. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen for consideration of this appeal and the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. All pending civil miscellaneous applications are also dismissed in view of the above. February 01,2010 “SCM” ( Mahesh Grover ) Judge