Sehgal and another v. Vs
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: September 16, 2025 Pronounced on: September 22, 2025 (i) RSA No.1022 of 2012 (O&M) Bhushan Sehgal and another . . . . Appellants Pushpa Devi (ii) Bhushan Sehgal Vs. Vs. . . . . Respondent * * * * RSA No.1583 of 2012 (O&M) . . . . Appellant Pushpa Devi and another . . . . Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Chetan Mi(cid:22)al, Sr. Advocate with
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vikas Singh and Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocates for respondent No.1 in both the appeals. Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2 in RSA No.1583 of 2012. Present at the ;me of pronouncement : None DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Background: These two appeals arise from two civil suits con- cerning the same property—House No. 3180/1, Sector 41D, Chandigarh— between siblings, Bhushan Sehgal (appellant) and Smt. Pushpa Devi (respond- ent). Smt. Neelam Sehgal is the wife of Bhushan Sahgal i.e. the sister-in-law of Smt. Pushpa Devi. The trial Court dismissed both suits by common judg- ment dated 24.01.2009. Both par6es filed separate appeals. The First Appel- late Court, by common judgment dated 06.01.2012, partly allowed Smt. Pushpa Devi’s appeal, while dismissing Bhushan Sehgal’s appeal. Aggrieved, Bhushan Sehgal has preferred the present two appeals. Sarita Rani 2025.09.22 15:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.1022 of 2012 (O&M) RSA No.1583 of 2012 (O&M) 2. Admi(cid:5)ed facts are as under: 2025:PHHC:130949 (cid:1) The house in dispute was allo(cid:22)ed under the discre6onary quota by Chandigarh Housing Board to Smt. Kaushalya Devi via allotment le(cid:22)er dated 21.01.1991 (Ex.D1), with possession delivered on 25.01.1991. (cid:1) In November 2000, Smt. Kaushalya Devi applied for transfer of the dwelling unit to her daughter Smt. Pushpa Devi under the blood rela- 6on policy. The Chandigarh Housing Board issued a transfer le(cid:22)er dated 23.01.2001 (Ex.P1). (cid:1) Disputes arose aAer Kaushalya Devi’s death on 22.02.2002. Bhushan Sehgal contended that the transfer was illegal, while Smt. Pushpa Devi claimed possession and mesne profit. 3. In Civil Suit No. 68 of 2004, Smt. Pushpa Devi claimed that de- fendants Bhushan Sehgal and his wife Smt. Neelam Sehgal occupied the house in dispute un6l March 2000, aAer which they moved to university ac- commoda6on at Punjab University, Chandigarh. Following the transfer of the house by the Chandigarh Housing Board in her name, the plain6ff alleged that the defendants threatened to oust her and her brother. It was further contended that on 01.07.2002, the defendants forcibly took possession of the drawing-cum-dining room, one bedroom, and kitchen, reloca6ng the plain6ff’s belongings to a single room. Based on these allega6ons, the plain6ff sought a decree for possession of the por6on occupied by the de- fendants and recovery of ₹57,000 as mesne profit at ₹3,000 per month from 01.07.2002 to 31.01.2004. 4. The defendants, however, contended that they had been paying instalments to the Chandigarh Housing Board since the allotment in January 1991 from a bank account in Bhushan Sehgal’s name. They claimed various documents, including ra6on card, voter ID, bank accounts, and u6lity connec- 6ons, were registered in their name at the house, and alleged that the plain6ff obtained the transfer through fraudulent means. They maintained Sarita Rani 2025.09.22 15:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 2 of 7 RSA No.1022 of 2012 (O&M) RSA No.1583 of 2012 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:130949 that possession of the house had always been joint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. In Civil Suit No. 250 of 2005, Bhushan Sehgal sought a declara- 6on that he was the sole owner in possession of the house and contended that the transfer le(cid:22)er dated 23.01.2001 in favour of Smt. Pushpa Devi was il- legal and void. He also sought a mandatory injunc6on direc6ng her to hand over the por6on of the house under her occupa6on. 6. The suit was contested by Smt. Pushpa Devi on same pleas as taken in her plaint of earlier suit. 7. Chandigarh Housing Board, in its separate wri(cid:22)en statement, admi(cid:22)ed that the transfer had occurred erroneously under the blood rela6on policy. 8. Trial Court Findings: Both suits were consolidated by order dated 25.05.2008. AAer framing issues and taking evidence, the trial Court held that the transfer le(cid:22)er was contrary to the terms of the allotment and dismissed Pushpa Devi’s suit. Regarding Bhushan Sehgal’s suit, the Court ob- served that the issue of cancella6on of the transfer le(cid:22)er was pending before the Chandigarh Housing Board, rendering his suit premature, and it too was dismissed. 9. Findings by the First Appellate Court: Both par6es filed separate appeals. The First Appellate Court, aAer reappraising the evidence, held that although the transfer le(cid:22)er was technically against the allotment terms, the Chandigarh Housing Board had relaxed these terms under its regulatory powers. The Court also noted that the trial Court had not addressed the issue of 6tle. Consequently, Pushpa Devi’s appeal was partly allowed, gran6ng her possession of the por6on occupied by Bhushan Sehgal, while her claim for mesne profit was rejected. Bhushan Sehgal’s appeal against the dismissal of his suit was dismissed. Sarita Rani 2025.09.22 15:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 3 of 7 RSA No.1022 of 2012 (O&M) RSA No.1583 of 2012 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:130949 10. Against the aforesaid common judgment dated 06.01.2012 of the First Appellate Court, the present two regular second appeals have been filed by Bhushan Sehgal. 11. Conten&ons before this court: Assailing the findings of the First Appellate Court, it is contended by learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants that transfer le(cid:22)er was issued contrary to the terms of the allot- ment le(cid:22)er. There was no finding that appellants had ever parted with pos- session; or that they had taken forcible possession of the por6on under their occupa6on. Payments toward instalments were made by him, and the Board’s relaxa6on powers (Regula6on 50) could not validate an illegal trans- fer. The Will dated 14.07.1999, relied upon by Smt. Pushpa Devi, was never produced or proved. 12. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent Smt. Pushpa Devi argues that Clause 12 of the allotment le(cid:22)er restricts only the transfer of ownership, not possessory rights. Besides, the Will dated 14.07.1999 of Smt. Kaushalya confirmed the rights of respondent in the suit property. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that Bhushan Sehgal had previously filed a suit challenging the registered Will dated 14.07.1999 executed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi in favour of Pushpa Devi, under which the house in dispute was bequeathed. That suit sought a declar- a6on that the Will was forged and fabricated. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 11.10.2017, and the Appellate Court upheld the decision on 26.07.2023. No further appeal was filed, and it was argued that the validity of the Will has thus a(cid:22)ained finality, warran6ng dismissal of the present ap- peals. 14. In response, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that Smt. Pushpa Devi cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate by rely- ing on the Will referred in her reply to the show-cause no6ce, par6cularly when she never produced the original Will at any stage. It was further con- tended that Bhushan Sehgal’s earlier suit was dismissed because he could not Sarita Rani 2025.09.22 15:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 4 of 7 RSA No.1022 of 2012 (O&M) RSA No.1583 of 2012 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:130949 prove fraud, as the Will propounded by Smt. Pushpa Devi was never pro- duced in Court. Since the original Will was neither produced nor supported by her tes6mony, the validity of the Will cannot be deemed established. On this basis, counsel reiterated the prayer for acceptance of the present ap- peals. 15. The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both par6es. 16. Analysis by this Court: The validity of the transfer le(cid:22)er dated 23.01.2001 (Ex.P1) hinges on the interpreta6on of the allotment condi6ons. Clause 12 of the allotment le(cid:22)er dated 21.01.1991 (Ex.D1) states that the al- lo(cid:22)ee shall not sell, alienate, transfer, or part with possession of the property un6l either the expiry of the hire-purchase period, or a period of 10 years from actual possession, whichever is later, subject to limited excep6ons such as leasing for a term not exceeding five years or mortgaging to raise loans for payment of the house price. 17. It is undisputed that possession was delivered to Smt. Kaushalya Devi on 25.01.1991, making the 10-year period expire on 25.01.2001. The transfer applica6on was filed on 09.11.2000, and the transfer le(cid:22)er was is- sued on 23.01.2001, i.e., before the comple6on of 10 years and before the al- lo(cid:22)ee had become the owner. Even assuming the issuance date is con- sidered, the transfer occurred prior to the expiry of the requisite period. Clause 12 clearly requires that transfer may occur only aAer the later of the two periods (ownership or 10 years). Since the allo(cid:22)ee had not acquired ownership at that 6me, the transfer could not lawfully be effected. Accord- ingly, the trial Court rightly concluded that the plain6ff’s claim based on the transfer le(cid:22)er was baseless. 18. The First Appellate Court’s finding that the Chandigarh Housing Board had exercised relaxa6on under Regula6on 50 is also without merit. Regula6on 50 empowers the Board to relax provisions only in excep6onal cir- cumstances to be recorded in wri6ng. In the present case, no reasons were Sarita Rani 2025.09.22 15:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 5 of 7 RSA No.1022 of 2012 (O&M) RSA No.1583 of 2012 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:130949 recorded in the transfer le(cid:22)er for any relaxa6on. Therefore, the conten6on that the transfer le(cid:22)er was valid is wholly without merit. 19. The respondent’s argument that possessory rights were unres- tricted is untenable, as “any right or interest” in Clause 12 encompasses pos- sessory rights. 20. Regarding the conten6on of respondent Smt. Pushpa Devi about the Will dated 14.07.1999 executed by Smt. Kaushalya Devi in her favour, it is per6nent to note that the present li6ga6ons do not concern the Will. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment dated 11.10.2017 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh, in CS No. CS CJ 12065 of 2012 (Bhushan Lal Sehgal v. Pushpa Rani), where Bhushan Lal Sehgal sought a de- clara6on that the Will was forged and obtained through coercion, asser6ng that all legal heirs, including himself and Pushpa Devi, were owners of House No.3180/1, Sector 41D, Chandigarh. The trial Court observed that the burden of proving due execu6on of the Will lies on the propounder. Since Smt. Pushpa Devi, the beneficiary, neither appeared for cross-examina6on nor produced the original Will, the Court held that the plain6ff failed to establish forgery, and the suit was dismissed. 21. The respondent also referred to the First Appellate Court’s judg- ment dated 26.07.2023 in Civil Appeal No.465 of 2017, which upheld that the Will was not proved, as Smt. Pushpa Devi had neither produced the original Will nor completed her deposi6on. Accordingly, the allega6ons regarding for- gery or incapacity of Smt. Kaushalya Devi remained unresolved, and the ap- peal was dismissed. 22. No benefit can be accorded to Smt. Pushpa Devi from these judgments, as the original Will was never produced, and its validity was not established. The mere fact that the plain6ff could not prove forgery due to non-produc6on of the Will does not establish its legality in favour of the re- spondent. Sarita Rani 2025.09.22 15:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 6 of 7 RSA No.1022 of 2012 (O&M) RSA No.1583 of 2012 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:130949 23. Furthermore, during the pendency of the present li6ga6on, a show-cause no6ce dated 01.01.2006 was issued to Smt. Pushpa Devi regard- ing cancella6on of the transfer le(cid:22)er dated 23.01.2001. In her reply, she claimed the existence of the registered Will dated 14.07.1999. However, in cross-examina6on as PW1 in the present proceedings, she admi(cid:22)ed that she had not produced the original Will. 24. In view of the above, no weight can be given to the claim of Smt. Pushpa Devi based on an unproven and unrevealed Will dated 14.07.1999. 25. Conclusion: Having considered the en6re ma(cid:22)er, the appeal arising from Civil Suit No. 68 of 2004, filed by Smt. Pushpa Devi, as preferred by Bhushan Sehgal, is accepted. Accordingly, the suit filed by Smt. Pushpa Devi seeking possession of the por6on of the house occupied by defendant Bhushan Sehgal (appellant) and recovery of mesne profits is dismissed. 26. As regards the appeal arising out of second suit filed by Bhushan Sehgal, he cannot claim absolute ownership of the house. There is no evid- ence indica6ng that the Chandigarh Housing Board has executed a convey- ance deed transferring ownership aAer the allotment. In the absence of such transfer, all legal heirs of Smt. Kaushalya Devi, including Smt. Pushpa & Bhushan Sehgal, hold equal allotment rights in respect of the house and are en6tled to have the same transferred from the Chandigarh Housing Board in equal shares, in accordance with law and permissible rules/regula6ons of Chandigarh Housing Board. 27.
Decision
Both appeals are disposed of accordingly. Photocopy of this or- der shall be placed on the connected case file. September 22, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.09.22 15:42 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 7 of 7