07.04.2025 Raman Kum an Kumar and others v. Parvesh Me Mehandi Ratta and others
Case Details
RSA-6134-2014 (O 014 (O&M) 1 [128] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RSA-6134 Date of De 6134-2014 (O&M) of Decision : 07.04.2025 Raman Kum an Kumar and others …Appellants versus Parvesh Me Mehandi Ratta and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocatefor atefor vocate Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate forthe appellants. Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the respondents. *** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] [2] Plaintiffs are in regular second econd appeal. For convenience, parties are are hereinafter referred to by the by their original po nal positions as in the Civil Suit
Legal Reasoning
Suit i.e. appellants as plaintiffs an iffs and respondents ndents as defendants. [3] Plaintiffs filed a suit, seeking eking declaration to the effect that the hat they are entitled ntitled to 2/3 share collectively and and defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/2 share in the in the property in the form of reside residential house as detailed out in th t in the head-note o note of the plaint. Further, prayer was er was for grant of decree of permane rmanent injunction ction restraining defendants from al om alienating or dispossessing of th of the share of the of the plaintiffs in the suit property in erty in any manner. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6134-2014 (O 014 (O&M) 2 [4] As per the plaintiffs, Karam C ram Chand the registered owner of th r of the property in erty in dispute was grandfather of pla of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and husband o band of plaintiff No tiff No.3. He was father of defendan fendant No.1. Karam Chand, who die died intestate, le , leaving behind Ishra Devi-widow widow, Surinder Kumar Mehandi Ratt Ratta- son. His o His other son namely Harmesh Kum h Kumar, pre-deceased Karam Chan Chand, leaving beh ng behind plaintiff Nos.1 & 2. Plaintif Plaintiffs alleged that Karam Chand wa was black mail mailed by defendant, who forced him ed him to execute a Will and a Gener General Power of A er of Attorney. The same was cance cancelled. Karam Chand died at th d at the residence o ence of his younger son Harmesh Kum sh Kumar, father of plaintiff Nos.1 & s.1 & 2 at Nakodar kodar. Defendants forcibly occupied upied house of Karam Chand. Harmes armesh Kumar died ar died on 03.07.2004. Defendants ref nts refused to give share in the proper property left by Kara Karam Chand to the plaintiffs, forci , forcing the plaintiffs to file the prese present suit. [5] Suit was contested by the defe defendants claiming to be owners s in possession ession of the house in question. [6] Defendants claimed that dur at during his life-time, Karam Chan Chand suffered de red decree in Civil Suit No.53 of 19 of 1994 in favour of defendant No. No.1. Karam Cha m Chand also executed Will dated 28. ted 28.01.1994, bequeathing property perty in question in tion in favour of defendant No.1. Pl .1. Plot in question was purchased b ased by defendant dant No.1 in the name of his father a ther and constructed house on his ow is own. It was cla as claimed that defendant No.1 jo o.1 joined services at Radio Statio Station, Jalandhar i dhar in the year 1968 and had be ad been working throughout his lif his life. Whereas fa reas father of plaintiffs remained un ned unemployed during his life. H e. His family was ly was being looked after by Karam Ch ram Chand. [7] On the basis of the pleadings, f - ings, following issues were framed:- RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “1. Whether the plaintiff is iff is entitled for the declaration a ion as 3 RSA-6134-2014 (O 014 (O&M) PP. being prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff injunction as being pray tiff is entitled for the permane prayed for? OPP anent 3. Whether Karam Chand the defendant no.1 dated and executed a valid will in favour ated 29.01.94? OPD our of 4. Whether the plaintiff ha present suit? OPD ff has got no cause of action to file th ile the ant no.1 is the owner in possession 5. Whether the defendant n the b judgment and decre e basis of the house on PD dated19.03.1994? OPD ion of decree 6. Whether the suit of the p present form? OPM the plaintiff is not maintainable in th in the 7. Relief.” [8] Trial Court held that the the defendants successfully prove proved execution o ution of Power of Attorney (Exhibit xhibit D-2) and Will (Exhibit D-1) b 1) by Karam Cha m Chand. Though, the same was su was subsequently cancelled by Kara Karam Chand vide vide cancellation deed dated 13.07 13.07.1994. However, on 19.03.199 3.1994, Karam Cha Chand suffered decree in favour of our of Surinder Kumar-defendant No. No.1. In the said e said decree passed by the Court Court of learned Civil Judge (Senio (Senior Division), J sion), Jalandhar, Surinder Kumar was r was declared to be exclusive owner wner in possession ession of the suit property. The said e said documents have been proved b oved by plaintiffs th tiffs themselves as Exhibit P-10/A and /A and Exhibit P-10/B. The said decre d decree having not g not been challenged, plaintiffs w tiffs were not entitled for decree o cree of ration. declaration [9] The aforesaid findings have be ave been affirmed by the learned Low d Lower Appellate C llate Court. [10] Counsel for the appellants llants while assailing the impugne pugned judgment a ment and decree passed by the Cou e Courts below submits that once th nce the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Power of A er of Attorney (Exhibit D-2) was canc as cancelled by cancellation deed date d dated RSA-6134-2014 (O 014 (O&M) 4 13.07.1994 .1994, the decree suffered by Karam aram Chand on the basis of said Pow d Power of Attorney ttorney cannot survive. He thus, subm , submits that the Courts below erred erred in non-suiting suiting the plaintiffs merely on the b the basis of a decree suffered on th on the basis of Po of Power of Attorney, which was su as subsequently cancelled. He furth further submits tha its that decree having not been regi n registered does not vest any title title in defendant dant No.1 and thus, Courts below h elow have erred in dismissing the su the suit filed by the by the plaintiffs. [11] Per contra, counsel for the def defendants-respondents submits th its that decree date e dated 19.03.1994 has remained unc ed unchallenged and thus, has attaine attained finality. H ity. He relies upon ‘Bachan Singh v ngh versus Kartar Singh and other others’ reported a rted as 2002 (1) PLJ 60, wherein it h in it has been held that where the clai e claim of the plain e plaintiffs was admitted by the defe defendants and suit was decreed b reed by Court on th t on the basis of admission, decree doe ee does not require to be registered. [12] I have heard counsel for the or the parties and have carefully gon ly gone through rec gh records of the case. [13] Relationship between the parti e parties is not in dispute. It is also n also not in dispute t spute that the property was owned by ed by Karam Chand. The branches o ches of his two son wo sons namely Harmesh Kumar and ar and Surinder Kumar are fighting fo ting for residential ential house owned by him. Karam C ram Chand died on 02.05.1995. Durin During his life-tim time, he executed registered Will an Will and Power of Attorney in favour o avour of Surinder K der Kumar. The said documents ents have been proved on record a cord as Exhibit D bit D-1 and Exhibit D-2 dated 28 ted 28.01.1994. Execution of thes f these documents ments is not in dispute. Thereafter reafter, on 19.03.1994, Karam Chan Chand suffered co red consent decree in favour of Surind Surinder Kumar in Civil Suit No.53 o o.53 of 1994. The . The said decree is also not in dispu dispute and has been proved on recor n record RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document by plaintiff laintiffs themselves as Exhibit P-10 10/A. Vide said decree, Surind urinder RSA-6134-2014 (O 014 (O&M) 5 Kumar wa ar was admitted to be owner in po possession of the suit property b erty by Karam Cha m Chand. In the said suit, Karam Cha m Chand was being represented by Sm
Legal Reasoning
by Smt. Parvesh-his his Attorney holder. Though, Ka Karam Chand lived for more tha re than year therea thereafter, he never challenged the d the said consent decree. Even th ven the aggrieved p ieved person i.e. father of the plainti plaintiffs, the excluded son of Kara Karam Chand, Har , Harmesh Kumar never preferred an rred any challenge to the said decree ti cree till 03.07.2004 .2004 when he died. The instant suit nt suit was instituted year thereafter o after on 18.07.2005 .2005. No challenge has been laid to laid to the decree in favour of Surind urinder Kumar, till ar, till date. In the absence of the the challenge to the said decree, th ree, this Court does t does not find any reason to interfere terfere with the well reasoned finding findings recorded by ed by the Courts below, dismissing th sing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. [14] In view of the above, the p the present regular second appeal ppeal is ordered to b red to be dismissed. All pending miscellaneous app us application(s), if any, stand dispose posed (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No [15] off. .2025 07.04.2025 ‘R. Sharma' RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document