Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder And Anr vs Pooja Rani And Anr on 5 July, 2022
RSA-1570 of 2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1570 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.07.2022
Rajinder and another ...Appellants
Versus
Pooja Rani and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Jagtej Singh Kang, Advocate, for
Mr. Abhimanyu Batra, Advocate, for respondent no.1.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
While assailing the correctness of the limited relief granted to
the plaintiff by the first appellate court, the defendants have filed the present
appeal.
Admittedly, late Smt. Ram Murti was the owner of the property,
namely, House No.258, measuring 100 square yards, bearing Municipal
No.400/15, Purana Arya Nagar, Rohtak. The plaintiff Pooja Rani is the
grand daughter of late Smt. Ram Murti (daughter's daughter).
Defendant no.1 is the son and defendant no.2 is the grand son of
late Smt. Ram Murti.
The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the
plaintiff has failed to prove the Will. She filed the appeal which has been
partly accepted. It has been found by the First Appellate Court that
irrespective of the Will, the plaintiff Pooja Rani being the class-I heir of late
Smt. Ram Murti is entitled to share in the property as per natural succession.
This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
1 of 3
RSA-1570 of 2017 (O&M) -2-
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
The learned counsel representing the appellants contends that
the First Appellate Court has erred in granting the relief which was never
claimed by the plaintiff. He submits that the plaintiff filed a suit claiming
ownership on the basis of registered Will which she failed to prove. Hence,
the First Appellate Court wrongly accepted the appeal partly, which was
filed by the plaintiff. The learned counsel relies upon the judgment passed
in Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs vs. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs and others (2010) 11
SCC 557.
On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
respondents submits that the plaintiff while filing the suit has claimed decree
of declaration that she is owner of the property on the basis of a registered
Will. He submits that even in absence of Will, she being class-I heir is
entitled to the relief granted.
This Court has considered the arguments of the learned counsel
representing the parties.
It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has claimed the relief of
decree of declaration that she is the owner of the certain part of the
property. Undoubtedly, she based her claim on the basis of the Will which
she failed to prove. However, she has claimed decree of declaration that
being owner she is entitled to protect her possession. Hence, it would not be
appropriate to contend that the plaintiff did not claim the relief which has
been granted. Although, while filing the suit she had based her claim on the
basis of a Will, however, she has become co-owner by the natural
succession. It is a well settled principle that the succession never remains in
abeyance. A decree of declaration is only reinforcing her rights in the
2 of 3
RSA-1570 of 2017 (O&M) -3-
property which has been inherited by her by the way of natural succession.
As regards the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel
representing the appellants, it may be noted here that the aforesaid case
arises from a writ petition filed before the High Court. In that context, the
Supreme Court held that the court cannot grant relief which was never
prayed for.
Hence, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the First Appellate Court
has taken a plausible view of the matter which does not require any
interference.
Dismissed.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
July 05, 2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
