Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamaljit Kaur vs Roop Rai Timber Works Etc on 3 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045479
RSA-1381-1989 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045479
and other connected cases
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. RSA-1381-1989 (O&M)
Reserved on: 22.02.2024
Date of decision: 03.04.2024
KAMALJIT KAUR
..Appellant
Versus
M/S ROOP RAI TIMBER WORKS AND ORS.
..Respondents
2. RSA-627-1990 (O&M)
M/S PRITAM SINGH ROOP RAI AND SONS & ORS.
..Appellants
Versus
KAMALJIT KAUR AND ORS.
..Respondent
3. RSA-1150-1987 (O&M)
PRITAM SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
..Appellants
Versus
KAMALJIT KAUR AND ORS.
..Respondents
4. RSA-1429-1990 (O&M)
PRITAM SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS
..Appellants
Versus
PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT
COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
..Respondents
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 10:40:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045479
RSA-1381-1989 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045479
and other connected cases
-2-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Advocate
for the appellant (in RSA-1381-1989)
for respondent No.1 (in RSA-627-1990 & RSA-1150-1987)
for respondent No.3 (in RSA-1429-1990).
Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate
for the appellants (in RSA-627-1990, RSA-1429-1990
and RSA-1150-1987).
for respondent No.2 (in RSA-1381-1989).
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the
parties, four connected appeals arising from four separate suits but
connected with each other shall stand disposed of by a common judgment.
2. A pedigree table of the family is drawn as under in order to
understand the relationship between the parties:-
Ram Singh
Pritam Singh Bachan Singh
Harbhajan Kaur
Amarjit Singh Manjit Singh
Kamaljit Kaur Baljeet Kaur
Sukhjit Kaur Manpreet Kaur Raja (son)
(daughter) (daughter)
3. Smt. Kamaljit Kaur widow of Sh. Amarjit Singh filed a Civil
Suit No.371 dated 11.06.1986 for dissolution and rendition of accounts of
the partnership firm M/s Roop Rai Timber Works with effect from
24.01.1981. It was claimed in the suit that the plaintiff was a partner in the
partnership firm by virtue of partnership deed dated 24.04.1981. The
plaintiff was entitled to the profits and loss to the extent of 33.33%. Her
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045479
RSA-1381-1989 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045479
and other connected cases
husband, Sh. Amarjit died on 27.02.1982, and after the death of her
husband, defendants have started denying the status of plaintiff as a partner
in the firm, and she has not been allowed access to the account book of the
firm and excluded from the business and management of the firm. The
defendants admitted the execution of the partnership deed dated 24.04.1981.
However, it was claimed that the plaintiff voluntarily retired from the
partnership after receiving a sum of Rs.57,164.41/- in full and final
settlement of her accounts. She also executed an acknowledgment of
retirement dated 16.04.1982. The partnership firm was dissolved with effect
from 31.03.1982, and the plaintiff's retirement came into effect with effect
from 01.04.1982. The plaintiff has received a sum of Rs.7,000/- more than
her due share and the plaintiff has also acknowledged her retirement from
the partnership vide receipt dated 11.12.1982. After filing replication, the
issues were called out, and the suit filed by the plaintiff for past with share
of each partner to the extent of 33.33% from the date of dissolution of firm
as on 12.06.1982. Upon reappreciation of evidence, the First Appellate
Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court,
against which RSA-1381-1989 has been filed.
4. On 11.06.1982 itself, Smt. Kamaljit Kaur and her 3 children
filed Civil Suit No.370 of 1982 for dissolution and rendition of accounts of
the firm M/s Pritam Singh Roop Rai and Sons. In this suit, the plaintiffs
claim that late Sh. Amarjit Singh, husband of plaintiff No.1, was partner to
the extent of 40% who died on 27.02.1982. Defendant No.2 and 3 after the
death of Sh. Amarjit Singh have executed another partnership deed dated
02.03.1982, which is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have been
excluded from the management and are misusing and mis-utilizing stock,
capital and profit of the firm.
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045479
RSA-1381-1989 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045479
and other connected cases
5. Defendant No.2 and 3 contested the suit on the ground that Sh.
Amarjit Singh executed a Will dated 13.10.1980, in favour of his father Sh.
Pritam Singh and therefore, the plaintiffs have no locus to file the suit. It
was claimed that the partnership stood dissolved on the death of Sh. Amarjit
Singh on 27.02.1982, and the amount standing in the name of Sh. Amarjit
Singh was to be credited as per retirement deed dated 16.04.1982, which
was reiterated in the agreement dated 11.11.1982. Both the Courts decreed
plaintiff's suit and held that the Will dated 13.12.1982, is surrounded by
suspicious circumstances which is subject matter of RSA-627-1990. The
defendants have filed RSA-627-1990, challenging the concurrent judgments
of the Courts below.
6. Smt. Kamaljit Kaur also filed Civil Suit No.687 of 1982 for the
grant of decree of declaration that the decree passed on 09.11.1982 in Civil
Suit No.431 dated 11.06.1982, is illegal, void and not binding upon the
plaintiff with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining
defendants No.2 and 3 from operating the bank accounts and restraining
defendant No.4 and 5 from allowing operation of bank accounts of the firm
M/s Roop Rai Timber Works. In this case, she claims that the decree has
been obtained by coercion and fraud. Defendants No.1 to 3 contested the
suit while denying any pressure, duress, fraud or undue influence. Both the
Courts have decreed Smt. Kamaljit Kaur's suit. The defendants have
assailed the correctness of concurrent findings of fact in RSA-1150-1987.
7. Sh. Pritam Singh filed Civil Suit No.143-1983, claiming the
property left behind by Sh. Amarjit Singh on the basis of Will dated
13.11.1980, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. This suit
was contested by Smt. Kamaljit Kaur and her children. The suit was
dismissed by the trial Court, which in appeal has been upheld by the First
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045479
RSA-1381-1989 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045479
and other connected cases
Appellate Court. The plaintiff has filed RSA-1429-1990, challenging the
concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while dismissing
his suit.
8. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the judgments of the
Courts below in all the cases as well as requisitioned lower Court record.
9. In RSA-1381-1989, the learned counsel representing the
appellant (Smt. Kamaljit Kaur) contends that Sh. Pritam Singh has failed to
prove that Smt. Kamaljit Kaur appended her signatures on documents dated
16.04.1982. While referring to the deposition of Sh. Ram Murty Aggarwal,
the learned counsel representing the appellant contends that Sh. Pritam
Singh has failed to prove that Smt. Kamaljit Kaur did sign the retirement
deed and settled her accounts. He submit that DW-5 Sh. Subhash Kumar has
failed to prove agreement dated 11.11.1982.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel representing Sh. Pritam Singh,
Sh. Manjit Singh, Smt. Baljeet Kaur contends that in RSA-1381-1989, the
findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court need no interference.
He has submitted that the documents have been proved on appreciation of
evidence.
11. This Court has carefully examined the document dated
16.04.1982, which is Ex.D-3 in Civil Suit No.371 dated 11.06.1986.
In this receipt, she acknowledges her voluntary retirement and receipt of
Rs.57,164.41/- as her share from M/s Roop Rai Timber Works in full and
final settlement of her accounts. She also acknowledges that the amount
found due in the name of her husband late Sh. Amarjit Singh in the firm M/s
Pritam Singh Roop Rai and Sons, G.T. Road, Khanna, be credited in the
names of her children Smt. Surjeet Kaur etc. In view of the documentary
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045479
RSA-1381-1989 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045479
and other connected cases
evidence, it would not be appropriate to rely upon oral evidence. Moreover,
in Ex.D-10, the copy of the written statement filed by Smt. Kamaljit Kaur in
the civil suit titled as Roop Rai Timber Works and others Vs. Smt. Kamaljit
Kaur, she has admitted that there was talk of compromise and with the
intervention of respectable, some progress was made.
12. Keeping in view of aforesaid facts, It would not be appropriate
for this Court to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First
Appellate Court in RSA-1381-1989. Smt. Kamaljit Kaur has failed to prove
that her signatures were obtained under duress, coercion , undue influence
or fraud. She has failed to plead and prove the complete particulars of the
fraud, which is alleged to have been played by her father-in-law Sh. Pritam
Singh.
RSA-627-1990
13. In RSA-627-1990, the defendants are assailing the concurrent
findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while decreeing plaintiff's
suit for dissolution of partnership from M/s Pritam Singh Roop Rai and
Sons. In this partnership firm, Sh. Pritam Singh had 40% share, whereas Sh.
Manjit Singh and Sh. Amarjit Singh had 30% each. On the other hand, Sh.
Pritam Singh claimed that the partnership deed has already been dissolved.
However, it was found by the Courts below that no evidence has been led to
prove dissolution of partnership M/s Pritam Singh and Roop Rai Sons.
Though, Sh. Pritam Singh claimed share of Sh. Amarjit Singh, his son, on
the basis of Will dated 13.11.1980. However, both the Courts have found
that Sh. Pritam Singh failed to remove the suspicious circumstances. It has
come on record that both the attesting witnesses namely DW-5 Sh. Mangal
Singh and DW-6 Sh. Kirpal Singh are entrusted witnesses as Sh. Mangal
Singh is brother-in-law of Sh. Manjit Singh, whereas Sh. Kirpal Singh is
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045479
RSA-1381-1989 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045479
and other connected cases
friend of Sh. Manjit Singh. Both the Courts have also found that execution
of Will is surrounded by suspicion as there is no reason for Sh. Amarjit
Singh to execute the Will at the fine youth age of 25 years while excluding
his wife and 3 minor children, particularly when there is no evidence of
disturbance in his married life.
14. Though, sincere efforts were made by the learned counsel
representing Sh. Pritam Singh, however, failed to draw the attention of the
Court to any substantive error. Hence, RSA-627-1990, is also dismissed.
RSA-1150-1987
15. RSA-1150-1987, has been filed by defendant No.1 to 3 against
the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while
decreeing Smt. Kamaljit Kaur's suit for the grant of decree of declaration
that the decree passed on 09.11.1982 in Civil Suit No.431 dated 11.06.1982,
is illegal, null and void. M/s Roop Rai Timber Works and Sh. Pritam Singh
filed Civil Suit No.431-1982 against Smt. Kamaljit Kaur for the grant of
decree of permanent injunction causing interference in the conduct of
business of the firm including bank accounts and for directing State Bank of
India and Punjab National Bank not to stop operation of the accounts. Smt.
Kamaljit Kaur on 09.11.1982, made the statement that she does not press
her application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and
has no objection if the suit is decreed. Now, Smt. Kamaljit Kaur claims that
the aforesaid statement was made under pressure. Both the Courts decreed
the suit. As already noticed, the firm M/s Roop Rai Timber Works stood
dissolved with effect from 31.03.1982. In these circumstances, the findings
of the fact Courts below is erroneous because she has no right to interfere in
the working of the firm. Hence, the judgments of the Courts below are set
aside.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045479
RSA-1381-1989 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:045479
and other connected cases
RSA-1429-1990
16. In RSA-1429-1990, the plaintiff Sh. Pritam Singh has
challenged the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below
while dismissing his suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of
the properties left behind by his son Sh. Amarjit Singh on the basis of Will
dated 13.12.1980. Both the Courts have found that the unregistered Will
dated 13.12.1980, is surrounded by suspicious circumstances which have
not be satisfactorily explained by the propounder. The learned counsel
representing the appellant though made sincere efforts, however, failed to
draw the attention of the Court to any substantive error. Hence, RSA-1429-
1990, is also dismissed.
17. Resultantly, RSA-1150-1987, shall stand allowed, whereas the
remaining three regular second appeals shall stand dismissed.
19. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 03rd, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
