Hig High Court
Case Details
RSA-4324- -2015(O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 239 RSA-4324-2015(O&M) Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 l Singh Kewal Singh .…Appellant Versus Buta Singh a ingh and others ....Respondents CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate fo cate for the appellant. None for the respondents. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 is in second rent cond appeal against the concurrent judgments an ents and decrees of both the Courts be the urts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/resp ff/respondent No. 1, has been decreed creed by both the Courts below. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The parties shall hereinafter be atus fter be referred to as per their status before the l the learned trial Court i.e. the appe o as e appellant is being referred to as ‘defendant N dant No. 1’, whereas the respondent No. 1 as ‘the plaintiff’. 3. It was the pleaded case of the p nted f the plaintiff that he had appointed Jugraj Singh Singh S/o Sapuran Singh as his Spec was s Special Power of Attorney. It was averred that d that after the death of Dan Singh, ingh, Nand Kaur D/o Bhola Singh became the e the owner in possession of the sui heir. the suit land being only legal heir. Nand Kaur w Kaur was the real sister of Dan Singh. uted ingh. Said Nand Kaur had executed a registered tered Will on 11.04.1992 (Ex. P-1) du state during her lifetime of her estate in favour of our of plaintiff-Buta Singh who is s the o is son of Nand Kaur. Thus, the plaintiff has ff has became owner of the suit land. t the land. It was further pleaded that the suit land was nd was Banjar Qadim and is in posses the possession of the plaintiff being the RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4324- -2015(O&M) -2- owner. Teja Teja Singh, predecessor-in-interest ore terest of defendant had died more than 20 yea 20 years ago; and the name of Te of Teja Singh had been wrongly mentioned in ned in the Revenue Record. In a prev aur, a previous suit filed by Nand Kaur, the plaintiff intiff had been made legal representat suit, sentative of Nand Kaur. In that suit, a compromis promise had been effected in which ingh hich defendant No. 1 - Kewal Singh was a party party to the compromise. Clearly, the nue ly, therefore, entries in the Revenue Record show d showing Teja Singh in column of c was n of cultivation were wrong. It was averred that d that defendants have been threateni e in eatening the plaintiff to interfere in his possessi ossession over the suit land. The the The plaintiff had requested the defendants to ants to admit his right over the suit la , the suit land but all in vain. Hence, the present suit t suit was filed by the plaintiff on tion on 01.05.2006seeking declaration that the plain e plaintiff is owner in possession of th the n of the suit land as described in the plaint. Alter Alternative prayer was made for a the for any other relief to which the plaintiff is en is entitled. 4. Upon appraisal and considerati ideration of the pleadings, as also the evidence idence adduced by the parties, the lea the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the pl the plaintiff vide judgment and decre decree dated 06.12.2011declaring him owner in wner in possession of the suit land. 5. The Civil Appeal filed by the d y the defendants was dismissed by the ld. Addi Additional District Judge, Ferozepu ozepur, vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2 10.03.2015. Hence, present second app nd appeal by defendant no.1. 6. It is, inter alia, submitted by le by learned counsel for defendant No. 1-appell appellant that the learned Courts belo ts below have failed to appreciate that the suit e suit of the plaintiff was not maintain aintainable. It is submitted that the Revenue Re ue Record amply bears out that T that Teja Singh, predecessor-in- RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4324- -2015(O&M) -3- interest of t of the appellant was in possession session of the suit land. Yet, the plaintiff had ff had filed the suit only for declaratio laration without seeking the relief of possession session. It is submitted that therefore, efore, the civil suit of the plaintiff seeking onl g only a declaration without relie t relief of possession, was not maintainable inable. 7. Moreover, plaintiff was also also unable to prove his alleged possession o sion over the suit land. Thus, when when the plaintiff has failed to prove the al the alleged possession over the suit l suit land and has not sought the relief of pos of possession and has merely sough sought a declaration, suit of the plaintiff was was barred as per proviso of Sectio Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. . However, this issue has not b not been considered by the Ist Appellate Co late Court. 8. It is also submitted that Dan S Dan Singh was not proved to be owner of th of the suit land. As such, there is ere is no question of Nand Kaur becoming th the owner of the entire suit land. land. Thus, when Nand Kaur was not recorded corded as owner of the suit land in the in the Revenue Record, she has no right to exec o execute any Will in favour of the pl the plaintiff. This is especially so as, it is an a is an admitted fact on record that she at she had previously executed a registered red Will dated 09.07.1991 in favou favour of defendantNo. 1-Kewal Singh and 0 and 03 other persons, namely, Bikar Bikar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Binder Singh r Singh. It is accordingly, submitted th itted that the impugned judgments and decrees ecrees of both the Courts below suff w suffer from material errors and deserve to be e to be set aside. 9. No other argument has been een raised by learned counsel for the appellan
Legal Reasoning
pellant. I have heard learned counsel unsel and perused the case file in RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4324- -2015(O&M) -4- detail. I fin find no merit in the submissio missions advanced on behalf of appellant. 10. No doubt, Nand Kaur had previ previously executed a Registered Will dated ated 09.07.1991 in favour of defendan fendant No. 1-Kewal Singh and 03 other person persons, namely, Bikar Singh, Mukht Mukhtiar Singh and Binder Singh regarding he ing her entire movable and immovabl ovable property, as per which her estate devolv devolved in equal shares upon them. them. However, a perusal of the present regis registered Will dated 11.04.1992 (E 992 (Ex. P-1) executed by Nand Kaur in favo n favour of her son/plaintiff shows tha ws that it bears a clear recital that the previou revious registered Will dated 09.07 09.07.1991 stood cancelled. In registered W red Will (Ex. P-1), it is clearly men y mentioned that Nand Kaur had cancelled the led the earlier registered Will dated 09 09.07.1991 executed in favour of defendant endant No. 1 and 03 other aforesaid p esaid persons as the they were not looking after g after her and she is not happy with with their services. In the present registered W red Will (Ex. P-1), Nand Kaur had d clearly stated that she was happy with t with the services of the plaintiff. 11. Furthermore, the said registere gistered Will (Ex. P-1) was duly proved on r on record by the plaintiff by prod producing the attesting witness, namely, D y, Dial Singh, Lambardar as PW- -2; and PW-3 Mehal Singh, Scribe of the of the Will. Moreover, the appellant ellant as DW-1 had admitted that Nand Kaur h Kaur had executed registered Will da ill dated 11.04.1992 (Ex P-1) in favour of th of the plaintiff. The appellant had al had also admitted that during her life, Nand K and Kaur resided with the plaintiff a intiff and had died there, and that last ceremon remony of Nand Kaur was performed formed by the plaintiff. Thus, the plea of the f the appellant in the written statem statement that the registered Will RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4324- -2015(O&M) -5- (Ex. P-1) is is forged and fabricated is rendere endered nugatory. Even otherwise, the defendan fendants did not adduce any evidence t dence to dispute the said Will. 12. As regards the contention o ion of learned counsel for the appellant qu ant qua ownership of Nand Kaur over over the suit land, the appellant and his co is co-defendants have taken contradic ntradictory pleas; inasmuch as on the one han e hand, the appellant stated that Na at Nand Kaur was not owner in possession o sion of the suit land; whereas on th on the other hand he himself is claiming ow ng ownership over the suit land o and on the basis of Will dated 09.07.1991 1991 which was executed by Na by Nand Kaur. Moreover, the defendants i ants in their written statement have a have admitted that after the death of Dan Sing n Singh, Nand Kaur became owner of ner of the suit land being his only legal represe epresentative. 13. The contention of the appellan pellant that the civil suit filed by the plaintiff aintiff was not maintainable as no relie o relief of possession was sought, is also liabl liable to be rejected as, it was the as the clear pleaded case of the plaintiff that ff that he was owner ‘in possession’ ssion’ of the suit land. As noted above, no e , no evidence to the contrary has be has been led by the appellant to dispute the p e the possession of the plaintiff over f over the suit land. The plaintiff has also cate so categorically pleaded that since lo nce long revenue entries wrongly reflect poss possession of Teja Singh. Even o ven otherwise, defendants have admitted in ed in their written statement that aft hat after the death of Dan Singh, Nand Kaur h Kaur has become owner ‘in possession session’ of the suit land. Given the above facts facts, the said argument of ld. coun counsel for the appellant is also liable to be r to be rejected. RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4324- -2015(O&M) -6- 14. Ld. counsel for the appellan pellant is unable to dispute or controvert th vert the concurrent findings rendered b dered by both the Courts below. 15. 16.
Decision
In view of the above, present se sent second appeal, is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any als any also stand(s) disposed of. 2025 02.12.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.12.03 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.