Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs Bant Singh on 10 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049464
RSA-2038-2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049464
RSA-2486-2015 (O&M) 1
119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision :10.04.2024
1. RSA-2038-2015 (O&M)
Gurpreet Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
Bant Singh ...Respondent
2. RSA-2486-2015 (O&M)
Gurpreet Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
Bant Singh ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. J.S. Bhandohal, Advocate
for the respondent (in both the cases).
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
1. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties,
these two connected regular second appeals shall stand disposed of by a
common order.
2. Two separate suits were filed by the appellant, one for the grant of
decree of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. In
substance, he claimed that two sale deeds executed by his father, namely,
Sh. Joginder Singh are not binding on his rights. The other suit was filed by
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049464
RSA-2038-2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049464
him to claim maintenance from his father-Sh. Joginder Singh. The First
Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed in a suit for
declaration whereas, in a suit for maintenance the plaintiff-Gurpreet Singh has
been held entitled to Rs. 1 lakh, which was deposited during the course of trial.
3. Sh. Gurpreet Singh-plaintiff is a natural son of Karnail Singh. As
per the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, he was adopted by Sh.
Joginder Singh vide adoption deed dated 05.11.1993. The correctness of the
aforesaid finding of fact is not challenged before this Court.
4. In the suit filed for declaration, it came on record that Sh. Joginder
Singh had inherited the property on the basis of Will executed by his father
Sh. Chanan Singh. It has also come on record that Sh. Joginder Singh received
property from his three uncles, namely, Chhajju Singh, Nath Singh and Bhag
Singh. It has also come on record that the entire property was mixed up and
formed a common pool. Thus, the First Appellate Court has found that the sale
deed executed by Sh Joginder Singh is valid as the plaintiff has failed to prove
that the property was ancestral property. In fact, by virtue of two sale deeds,
Sh. Joginder Singh has sold common land measuring 02 acres and 03 kanals.
At the most, the property inherited by Sh. Joginder Singh from his father can
be ancestral. However, he also received the property by virtue of a Will. The
property which Sh. Joginder Singh received from his three uncles has again not
been identified. It has been laid by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Mara and others vs. M.S.T. Nikko alia Punjab Kaur', AIR
1964 SC 1821 that if the ancestral and self-acquired property is mixed up and
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049464
RSA-2038-2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049464
the party fails to identify ancestral property then the entire property is
considered as self-acquired.
5. For the aforesaid reason as well as for the reasons recorded by the
First Appellate Court, both the appeals are dismissed.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
10.04.2024 JUDGE
neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
3 of 3
