Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Kaur vs Chint Kaur & Anr on 2 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
Reserved on:- 17.10.2023
Pronounced on:- 02.12.2023
Surjit Kaur
....Appellant
Versus
Chint Kaur (since deceased through Legal Heirs Surjit Kaur and
Bhajan Kaur) and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate
for respondent/caveator Bhajan Kaur.
*****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. The appellant/plaintiff - Surjit Kaur has filed Regular Second
Appeal against impugned judgment and decree dated 18.09.2015 passed
by learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide which the appeal
preferred by Surjit Kaur plaintiff was dismissed and the judgment and
decree dated 28.07.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Anandpur Sahib dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff was upheld.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Surjit Kaur had
filed suit for declaration that she is joint owner/co-sharer in joint
possession of the land measuring 104 kanals - 4 marlas as mentioned in
head note of the plaint situated at village Bela Ramgarh, Tehsil Anandpur
1 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
Sahib, District Ropar as per jamabandi for the year 2002-03 and five
number of gift deeds all dated 30.05.2005 alleged to be executed by
defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and the mutation numbers
2756, 2757, 2758, 2760 and 2761 and the revenue record showing
defendant No. 2 as owner in possession on the basis of alleged five gift
deeds are wrong, illegal, null, incompetent, forged, fabricated, result of
fraud, without consideration and are not binding upon the rights of the
plaintiff and are liable to be set aside alongwith suit for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff
forcibly and illegally, changing the nature of suit land, raising any type of
construction or structure, selling, alienating the suit land, cutting and
removing the trees or creating any type of charge on the suit land in any
manner and in the alternative filed suit for possession.
3. The plaintiff submitted that she is the joint owner, co-sharer
in joint possession of suit land recorded in the name of Chint Kaur, as
detailed in the head note of the plaint. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2
are the members of Joint Hindu Family and they were co-parcenars with
their father Kesra Singh. The suit land was ancestral land in the hands of
Kesra Singh. The pedigree table showing the relationship of plaintiff and
defendants with Kesra Singh is as under :-
Wazira
- Deva Singh
- Kesra Singh
Smt. Chint Kaur Smt. Bhajan Kaur Smt. Surjit Kaur
(defendant No. 1) (defendant No. 2) (plaintiff)
2 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
It was further submitted that Deva Singh expired in the year
about 1922 and after the death of Deva Singh, the suit property was
inherited by his sons Mehar Singh and Kesra Singh. That Kesra Singh
executed a sale deed dated 27.08.1985 in favour of his wife Chint Kaur,
defendant No. 1 regarding the land as mentioned in para No. 5 of the
plaint. It was further submitted that Kesra Singh had no right to sell the
land measuring 34 kanals - 3 marlas, in favour of defendant No. 1, being
their Joint Hindu Family coparcenary and ancestral property. The alleged
sale deed is wrong, illegal, null and void. That Kesra Singh died intestate
in the year 1989, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No. 2
(daughters) as the sole legal heirs under the Hindu Mitakshra Law and
after his death the entire property was inherited by plaintiff and defendant
No. 2 in equal shares. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are also entitled to
the share of Chint Kaur in equal shares being the property held by Chint
Kaur on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 27.08.1985 was ancestral
land. It was further submitted that the five number of gift deeds all dated
30.05.2005 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Chint Kaur in favour of
defendant No. 2 are wrong, illegal, null, void, forged, fabricated and undue
influence practised by defendant No. 2 upon defendant No. 1. It was
further submitted that Chint Kaur was old lady, aged about 90 years and
defendant No. 2 in collusion with the attesting witnesses, scribe and the
registration agency procured the alleged gift deeds by practising fraud
upon defendant No. 2. The plaintiff was looking after and maintaining her
parents after her marriage in the year 1972 by staying with her parents in
village Bela Ramgarh. She alongwith her children and parents Kesra Singh
and Chint Kaur had joint Ration Card and Voter Card in village Bela
3 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
Ramgarh, whereas, Smt. Bhajan Kaur, defendant No. 2 had ration card and
vote in her in-laws village Nangli. That Chint Kaur was a simple, illiterate
and extremely aged lady of 90 years old and she was mentally deficient,
who could be won over by anybody. The cause of action arose to the
plaintiff against the defendants on 30.05.2005, when five alleged gift
deeds were executed by defendant No. 1, in favour of defendant No. 2,
wrongly and illegally. Hence, the present suit for declaration, permanent
injunction and in alternative suit for possession.
4. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants who appeared
in this case and filed joint written statement in which preliminary
objections regarding locus standi; maintainability; estoppel; limitation and
cause of action were taken.
On merits, it was submitted that the plaintiff had no right, title
or interest in the suit land measuring 104 kanal - 14 marlas, as detailed in
the head note of the plaint. That defendant No. 1 Chint Kaur being owner
in possession of suit land out of the joint khata as reflected in the revenue
record had gifted the land-in-suit to defendant No. 2 daughter with her
sweet will and consent and accordingly, five different gift deeds all dated
30.05.2005 were duly executed by defendant No. 1 Chint Kaur. It was
further submitted that on the day of execution and registration of aforesaid
gift deeds, defendant No.1 put defendant No. 2 in actual physical
possession of the suit land gifted by her and on the basis of five gift deeds,
five mutations were entered and duly sanctioned by Assistant Collector 1st
Grade, Anandpur Sahib vide order dated 28.02.2006. The land-in-suit was
self-acquired property of Chint Kaur defendant No. 1 and she was
competent to execute the said gift deeds. The defendant No. 2 is having
4 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
ownership rights and possessory title in the khata in her own capacity as
shown in copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-2003. It was admitted that
Kesra Singh and Mehar Singh were the sons of Deva Singh. However, it
was denied that the suit property came into the hands of Kesra Singh as
ancestral property. Rather the estate then acquired by Kesra Singh was his
self-acquired property and he was dealing with his property as its
exclusive owner in possession. This fact is evident when Kesra Singh
executed sale deed dated 27.08.1985 regarding 34 kanal - 3 marlas out of
total land in favour of his wife and mutation was also sanctioned. The said
sale deed was never questioned nor challenged by the plaintiff though she
was aware of said sale since the year 1985. Therefore, the plaintiff was
estopped by her act and conduct and long silence from bringing the present
suit, which was hopelessly barred. It was further submitted that the five
gift deeds all dated 30.05.2005 duly executed by Chint Kaur defendant
No.1 are legal and valid documents which stood proved before the Civil
Court in CS No. 278/08.08.2005 titled "Bhajan Kaur and another versus
Surjit Kaur and Sukhdev Singh", wherein Chint Kaur made judicial
statement dated 16.08.2005 in respect of gifting of the land-in-suit in
favour of defendant No. 2 Bhajan Kaur and that suit was ultimately
dismissed as withdrawn. The plaintiff has no right to bring the present suit
which was utterly false, baseless and vexatious. It was denied that Chint
Kaur was mentally deficient. The alleged mutation No. 215 sanctioned on
28.06.1922 was also denied for want of knowledge. By denying the
remaining facts stated by the plaintiff, it was alleged that she has no cause
of action to file the present suit. The suit filed by her was false, frivolous
and just to harass the answering defendants. It was prayed that the suit
5 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed.
5. In replication, the plaintiff denied the facts stated in the
written statement and reiterated her claim in the plaint.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the trial Court on 06.11.2006 :-
(1) Whether the gift deeds dated 30.05.2005 executed by the
defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 are illegal, null
and void and are liable to be set aside? OPP
(2) If issue No. 1 is proved then whether the plaintiff has become
co-owner of the suit land? OPP
(3) If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved, then whether the plaintiff is
entitled to perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from
dispossessing the plaintiff as well as alienating her share in the
suit land? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action
to file the present suit? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct
from filing the present suit? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD
(7) Relief.
7. During the pendency of the civil suit, defendant No. 1 Chint
Kaur expired leaving behind her legal heirs i.e. plaintiff Surjit Kaur and
defendant No. 2 Bhajan Kaur and accordingly, amended memo of parties
was taken on record.
8. In order to prove the suit, the plaintiff Surjit Kaur examined
herself as PW-1. The plaintiff also examined Jarnail Singh as PW-2, Param
Singh as PW-3, Hardish Kaur as PW-4, Joga Singh as PW-5, Balbir Singh
as PW-6 and Uday Singh as PW-7. Thereafter, learned counsel for the
plaintiff tendered documents i.e. Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-46, Ex.P16/A and Mark-
B to Mark-K and closed the evidence.
6 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
9. In order to rebut the case of the plaintiff, the defendant No. 2
Bhajan Kaur herself stepped into the witness box as DW-5. She also
examined Om Nath, Deed Writer, Tehsil Complex, Nangal as DW-1, Prem
Chand, Deed Writer, Tehsil Complex, Nangal as DW-2, Jaspal Singh as
DW-3, Anita Sharma as DW-4 and Balkar Singh as DW-6 and closed the
oral evidence. Thereafter, learned counsel for the defendant No. 2 tendered
documents i.e. Ex.D-10 to Ex.D-31, Ex.D-10/A, Ex.D-11/A, Ex.D-12/A
and Mark-A and Mark-B and closed documentary evidence.
10. In rebuttal evidence, the learned counsel for plaintiff tendered
documents Ex.P-38 to Ex.P-46 and Mark-X to Mark-Z and closed the
rebuttal evidence.
11. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
both the parties, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment
and decree dated 28.07.2014. Feeling aggrieved of this judgment and
decree, the plaintiff Surjit Kaur filed Civil Appeal No. 229 dated
06.09.2014 which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
18.09.2015. Feeling aggrieved of this judgment and decree, the present
Regular Second Appeal has been filed.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels for
both the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff argued that
the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are against the facts
proved on record and against the law. The findings on issues No. 1 to 3 are
without any justification. The property in the hands of Kesra Singh was
ancestral property inherited from his father and forefather. The sale deed
executed by Kesra Singh in favour of his wife Smt. Chint Kaur was
without consideration or legal necessity. Therefore, Smt. Chint Kaur could
7 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
not have become owner of the property on the basis of sale deed dated
27.08.1985 being their ancestral property. The gift deeds all dated
30.05.2005 alleged by the respondent /defendant No. 2 Bhajan Kaur are
the result of undue influence, since the donor and the donee are closely
related to each other being mother and daughter. In-fact, the
appellant/plaintiff Surjit Kaur was looking after her mother while staying
with her mother in their parental village at Bela Ramgarh, Tehsil
Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. She had gone out in connection with the
delivery of Hardish Kaur, daughter-in-law in relation and during that
period, Bhajan Kaur managed to procure the gift deeds dated 30.05.2005
regarding the property standing in the name of Smt. Chint Kaur in her
favour. It is pointed out that Smt. Chint Kaur was an old lady of 90 years
of age. She was of feeble mind and could not understand her welfare.
Under these circumstances, Bhajan Kaur managed to procure the disputed
gift deeds in her favour in connivance with the scribe and the marginal
witnesses. In order to prove the aforesaid facts, Surjit Kaur herself stepped
into the witness box as PW-1 and her version is supported by Jarnail Singh
PW-2 and Param Singh PW-3. The appellant/plaintiff had also examined
Hardish Kaur PW-4 daughter-in-law of the plaintiff in relation who has
proved on record the medical certificate confirming that she delivered a
child on 22.05.2005 and during this period, the appellant/plaintiff
accompanied her. The appellant/plaintiff has also proved on record the
school record of her children to establish that she was staying with her
mother and looked after her. After the execution of disputed gift deeds
dated 30.05.2005, one suit for permanent injunction was got filed but
before the service of defendants in that case, the said civil suit was
8 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
withdrawn. The disputed gift deeds as well as the aforesaid civil suit was
filed without the knowledge of appellant/plaintiff and when she came to
know about these facts, she had filed the present suit. The learned counsel
for the appellant/plaintiff also referred to the cross-examination of Bhajan
Kaur defendant DW-5 as well as Balkar Singh DW-6 who also stated that
Smt. Chint kaur was not mentally alert after the death of her husband
Kesra Singh. Therefore, the aforesaid gift deeds dated 30.05.2005 claimed
by the respondent/defendant No. 2 Bhajan Kaur are result of fraud,
misrepresentation and undue influence and the same are liable to be set
aside. It is prayed that the findings given by the Courts below are without
merits. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit
filed by the plaintiff as well as dismissing her appeal may kindly be set
aside and the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff Surjit Kaur may be
decreed, as prayed for.
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent/defendant No. 2 argued that the facts of the case and the
evidence on record were duly considered by the trial Court as well as by
the first Appellate Court. There is consistent findings in favour of the
respondent/defendant No. 2 and there is no reason to set aside the same.
In-fact, the respondent/defendant No. 2 led convincing evidence on record
to prove the stand taken by her in the written statement. Bhajan Kaur the
defendant had stepped into the witness box to prove her case as DW-5 and
her version is also confirmed by her son Balkar Singh DW-6. In order to
prove the execution of gift deeds dated 30.05.2005, firstly the defendant
No. 2 had examined Deed Writer Om Nath DW-1 who proved four gift
deeds, all dated 30.05.2005 Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4 and also proved the relevant
9 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
entry in the register of scribe which are Ex.D1/A to D4/A. The fifth gift
deed is proved by Prem Chand Deed Writer as DW-2 which is Ex.D-5 and
the relevant entry of the register is Ex.D5/A. One of the marginal witness
Jaspal Singh is also examined as DW-3 to prove the execution and
registration of aforesaid gift deeds executed by Smt. Chint Kaur, defendant
No. 1 and the said gift deeds were duly accepted by Bhajan Kaur,
respondent/defendant No. 2. The learned counsel for respondent/defendant
No. 2 also referred to the statement of Anita Sharma, Record Clerk DW-4
who has proved on record the copy of plaint in civil suit No. 278 dated
08.08.2005, titled "Bhajan Kaur and another versus Surjit Kaur and
another" Ex.D-7. In the said civil suit, Smt. Chint Kaur had appeared
before the Court on 16.08.2005 and had withdrawn the said civil suit. The
copy of statement is Ex.D-6 and the order of the Court dated 16.08.2005 is
Ex.D-8. The aforesaid record was rightly considered and appreciated by
the learned trial Court as well as by the first Appellate Court and
thereafter, the suit filed by the plaintiff as well as first appeal were
dismissed. There is no convincing evidence produced on record to show
that Smt. Chint Kaur was not mentally fit to execute the aforesaid gift
deeds dated 30.05.2005 challenged by the appellant/plaintiff Surjit Kaur.
Therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff is without merits
and deserves dismissal.
14. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the
record of trial Court file carefully. It is the case of appellant/plaintiff that
she is joint owner/co-sharer in the suit property standing in the name of
Smt. Chint Kaur, widow of Kesra Singh firstly by claiming that the
property in dispute in the hands of her father Kesra Singh was their Joint
10 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
Hindu Family coparcenary ancestral property. Therefore, Kesra Singh was
not competent to execute sale deed dated 27.08.1985 in favour of his wife
Chint Kaur and she has also challenged the gift deeds all dated 30.05.2005
executed by Chint Kaur regarding the properties in her hands in favour of
her daughter Bhajan Kaur by alleging that the said gift deeds are result of
fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence since Chint Kaur was of
feeble mind. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has again
insisted on her stand that the property in the hands of Kesra Singh was
their ancestral property but the perusal of trial Court file shows that the
counsel for plaintiff had given up the claim regarding ancestral Joint
Hindu Family coparcenary nature of the property by making statement
dated 08.07.2014. Therefore, the property in the hands of Kesra Singh is to
be considered as his self acquired property.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff did not advance any argument regarding the sale deed
dated 27.08.1985 executed by Kesra Singh in favour of his wife,
measuring 34 K - 3 M being 1/4th share in 136 K - 11 M of land. The
learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff has advanced the arguments only
challenging the five registered gift deeds all dated 30.05.2005 executed by
Chint Kaur in favour of her daughter Bhajan Kaur respondent/defendant
No. 2. Therefore, the matter in controversy is whether Chint Kaur was
competent to execute the aforesaid gift deeds or not.
It is the case of appellant/plaintiff that Chint Kaur was 90
years of age and she was of feeble mind. She was not in a position to think
about her welfare. Under these circumstances, Bhajan Kaur
respondent/defendant No. 2 managed to get the aforesaid five gift deeds
11 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
dated 30.05.2005 executed in her favour by way of fraud,
misrepresentation and undue influence. The appellant/plaintiff has tried to
prove this fact by leading oral evidence. She herself stepped into the
witness box as PW-1 and further examined Jarnail Singh as PW-2 and
Param Singh, Ex-Sarpanch as PW-3. Firstly, on the basis of oral
statements of the aforesaid witnesses, in the absence of any medical
record, it cannot be said that Chint Kaur was of feeble mind to the extent
that she was not competent to execute the aforesaid gift deeds all dated
30.05.2005. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff referred to the
cross-examination of Bhajan Kaur DW-5 where she admitted that Chint
Kaur after the death of her husband was badly effected. Similarly, Balkar
Singh DW-6 during his cross-examination further stated that for the last
about three years his grandmother was not fully well. It cannot be ignored
that Chint Kaur was an old lady having grandchildren. At the age of 85-90
years, it cannot be expected that she will be physically fit as compared to a
young person or a middle aged person. Chint Kaur lost her husband and
the adverse effect on her for losing her husband is quite natural. From the
aforesaid facts, it cannot be gathered that Chint Kaur was mentally
unstable and not competent to execute the aforesaid gift deeds all dated
30.05.2005. On the contrary, the respondent/defendant No. 2 has examined
the scribe Om Nath DW-1, Prem Chand, Deed Writer DW-2 and Jaspal
Singh, marginal witness DW-3 who have duly proved on record the
disputed five gift deeds dated 30.05.2005 Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5. The aforesaid
gift deeds are registered documents. There is endorsement of Sub-
Registrar along with their joint photograph. Under these circumstances, it
cannot be said that Chint Kaur was not mentally fit to execute the
12 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
aforesaid documents. Apart from this, Bhajan Kaur along with Chint Kaur
filed suit for permanent injunction against the present appellant/plaintiff
Surjit Kaur and her son Sukhdev Singh. The copy of plaint is Ex.D-7 and
in the said civil suit, Chint Kaur appeared in the Court on 16.08.2005
where Chint Kaur and Bhajan Kaur gave their joint statement that the
matter was settled with the intervention of Panchayat. Therefore, the said
civil suit was withdrawn. The copy of that statement is Ex.D-6 and
accordingly, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
16.08.2005, which is Ex.D-8. On the basis of aforesaid gift deeds, during
the pendency of present case, mutation was also sanctioned in favour of
Bhajan Kaur respondent/defendant No. 2. In the light of aforesaid facts,
the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove the stand taken by her in the
plaint. Since, the property was owned by Chint Kaur, she had every right
to deal with the same as per her desire. She preferred to execute five
registered gift deeds all dated 30.05.2005 in favour of her daughter Bhajan
Kaur by leaving aside her another daughter Surjit Kaur i.e. the
appellant/plaintiff. The facts of the case and the evidence on record were
rightly considered and appreciated by the Courts below.
The facts of the case and the evidence on record were rightly
appreciated by both the Courts. In the given facts and circumstances of the
case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the verdict given by the Courts
below and the same are accordingly, upheld. No substantial question of
law arises in this appeal. With this observation, finding no merits in the
Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff Surjit Kaur, the
same is accordingly, dismissed.
13 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
2023:PHHC:157509
RSA-3259-2016 (O&M)
The photocopy of record received from lower Court be sent
back to the concerned quarter.
Pending application(s) if any, shall stands disposed of.
02.12.2023 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
lalit JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157509
14 of 14
