Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh vs Amrik Singh on 25 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061548
RSA-1401-2018(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-1401-2018(O&M)
Reserved on:-19.4.2023
Date of Pronouncement:-25.4.2023
Amarjit Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Amrik Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Amarjit
Singh had brought a suit against his real brother Amrik Singh, seeking a
declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land and revenue
entries be corrected by deleting name of the defendant qua the suit land
besides craving for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the
defendant from interfering in cultivating possession of the plaintiff over
the suit land.
2. As per the version of the plaintiff, the suit land happened to
be self acquired property of Kartar Singh (since dead), father of the
parties; during his life time Kartar Singh was being looked after and
maintained by the plaintiff and after his death on 22.2.2007, his last rites
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061548
RSA-1401-2018(O&M) -2-
were also performed by the plaintiff, however, the suit land was mutated
by the revenue authorities in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant in
equal shares, which was wrong because defendant had been disinherited
by Kartar Singh father of the parties by inserting a notice in daily
Newspaper Des Sewak on 17.12.2006 and the plaintiff alone had been
cultivating the suit land during the life time of Kartar Singh; the defendant
being a head strong person threatened to occupy the suit land. Feeling
aggrieved, the plaintiff had brought the suit in question.
3. On notice the defendant appeared and filed a written
statement contesting the suit raising various legal objections, on merits
contending that Kartar Singh father of the parties vide a registered Will
dated 9.10.2002 had bequeathed the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and
defendant in equal shares and after his death, it was rightly mutated in
favour of the parties on the basis of the Will. Refuting the other assertions,
the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The plaintiff had filed replication controverting the
allegations in the written statement whereas reiterating the averments in
the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of property in dispute?
OPP.
2. Whether defendant is trying to occupy the suit land by illegal and
forceful means? OPP.
3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is maintainable? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action? OPP.
5. Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts? OPD.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061548
RSA-1401-2018(O&M) -3-
6. Whether defendant is entitled to special costs of Rs.15,000/- under
Section 35-A CPC? OPD.
7. Whether deceased Kartar Singh executed Will dated 9.10.2002
during his life time in favour of plaintiff as well as defendant
regarding entire property in equal share to the extent of ½ share
each.? OPD.
8. Relief.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.
During the course of his evidence, the plaintiff got his
statement recorded as PW1 besides examining Shiv Dayal Singh as PW2,
Rajesh Kumar, Stamp Vendor as PW3, Karam Kaur as PW4, Mrs.
Santosh Subharwal, Notary Public, Hoshiarpur as PW5 and Malkiat Singh
and PW6.
With that the evidence of the plaintiff stood closed.
In rebuttal, the defendant examined Kuldeep Singh,
Registration Clerk as DW1, Dharminder Pal Singh as DW2 and defendant
himself stepped into the witness box as DW3.
With that the evidence of the defendant got concluded.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court
of Addl Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Dasuya decided issues No.1 and 2 against
the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant, issues No.3 and 4 were also
decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant; issues No.5 to
7 were decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. As a
result of findings on issues, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. This
was so done vide judgment and decree dated 4.7.2013.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061548
RSA-1401-2018(O&M) -4-
7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
plaintiff had filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Hoshiarpur,
who vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2015 dismissed the same
upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court..
8. Still feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff has knocked at the door
of this Court by way of filing a regular second appeal praying that the
same be accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the
Courts below be set aside and his suit be decreed.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant besides going
through the record.
10. In this case both the Courts below on proper appraisal and
appreciation of evidence and correct interpretation of law have reached a
firm conclusion that Kartar Singh father of the parties had executed a
registered Will dated 9.10.2002 vide which he had bequeathed his
property to his two sons i.e. plaintiff Amarjit Singh and defendant Amrik
Singh in equal shares, whereas not giving any share in his estate to third
son Amritpal Singh and further mutation on the basis of that Will Ex.D1
has been entered and sanctioned and that mutation order has been upheld
at the level of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. The Will in question
was duly proved by the defendant by examining DW1 Kuldeep Singh,
Registration Clerk and DW2 Dharminder Pal Singh son of Piara Singh
(since dead), who was one of the attesting witnesses of the Will. DW2
Dharminder Pal Singh had identified signatures of his father Piara Singh
on the Will. The Courts below have considered the assertions of the
plaintiff that defendant has no share in the property in dispute since he had
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061548
RSA-1401-2018(O&M) -5-
been disinherited by father Kartar Singh by getting a notice published in
the Newspaper 'Des Sewak' in December, 2006. However, it was found
that such notice was not sufficient to disinherit defendant Amrik Singh
from the property belonging to his deceased father Kartar Singh. The Will
Ex.D1, which was duly executed by the testator Kartar Singh was not
revoked by him during his life time. This fact has been admitted by PW4
Karam Kaur widow of Kartar Singh as well as PW2 Shiv Dayal Singh.
The trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
11. Learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur had also reached the
similar conclusion affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court and
dismissed the appeal.
12. I find that the findings given by the Courts below are based
upon proper appreciation and correct interpretation of law. Both the
Courts had rejected the claim of the plaintiffs. I do not see any reason to
disagree with the Courts below and take a different view and further to
interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees. Those judgments and
decrees are upheld.
13. No substantial question of law or fact arises in this appeal.
14. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
Since the main appeal stands dismissed, the miscellaneous
application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
25.4.2023 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061548
5 of 5
