Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bachan Kaur & Ors vs Navdeep Kaur & Ors on 25 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
111 2024:PHHC:010408
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Regular Second Appeal No. 3035 of 1994 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 25.01.2024
Bachan Kaur (Deceased) through her Legal Representatives
... Appellant(s)
Versus
Navdeep Kaur and Others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate
for the appellant(s).
Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal and Mr. Harkirat Singh Sakrali,
Advocates, for the respondent No.1.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab and
Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the
Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in
Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC
2. In this regular second appeal, the defendants assail the
correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District
Judge, Patiala, which, in turn, has reversed the judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court.
3. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
integrity of this document Navdeep Kaur daughter of Chhaja Singh filed a suit for the
2024:PHHC:010408
grant of decree of declaration that the suit property is the joint Hindu
coparcenary property and Chhaja Singh had acquired interest in the suit land
by birth. It was, thus, claimed that two consent decrees suffered by Arjan
Singh are illegal, null and void.
5. The trial Court dismissed the suit, however, the First Appellate
Court, on reappreciation of the evidence which was produced, held that since
the property in the hands of Arjan Singh was the coparcenary property,
therefore, Chhajja Singh, being the coparcener, was the owner to some
extent. The First Appellate Court examined the revenue record from 1989-
90 along with the record of consolidation of the holdings. Ultimately, the
Court came to a conclusion that the suit property is the joint Hindu
coparcenary property being ancestral. The First Appellate Court also noticed
that while replying to para 2 and 3 of the plaint, the defendants have not
disputed that the property is not only the ancestral, but also a coparcenary
property. Thus, the suit filed by plaintfif-Navdeep Kaur was decreed to the
extent of 1/12th share. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing
the appellants submits that the First Appellate Court has erred in setting
aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court whereas, the learned counsel
representing the cross-objectors contends that due to typographical mistake,
the share of Navdeep Kaur has been calculated as 1/12 th share which should
be 1/9th.
6. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and
with their able assistance, perused the paper-book.
7. It shall be noted here that the First Appellate Court has
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJextracted the contents of para 2 and 3 of the plaint as well as the written
2024:PHHC:010408
statement, which are produced as under:-
"The parties and Chhajja Singh deceased are Hindu-Sikhs and
are governed by Mitakshara branch of Hindu law as prevalent
in Northern India and form a Joint Hindu Family."
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
"Para no.2 is correct."
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
"The suit land was the ancestral and coparcenary property of
Chhajja Singh in the hands of defendant No.1 and Chhajja
Singh had acquired an interest in it equal to that of defendant
no.1 by virtue of his birth in the family."
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
"Para no.3 is correct to the extent that the suit property is
ancestral property qua defendant no.1 and Chajja Singh. Rest
of the para is wrong and denied. It is wrong that defendant no.7
is the widow of Chajja Singh."
8. It has also come on record that Arjan Singh has two sons
namely Chhajja Singh and Joginder Singh. Since the property was
coparcenary property, therefore, Chhajja Singh son of Arjan Singh was the
coparcener. Hence, he had a share in the coparcenary property. The First
Appellate Court has elaborately discussed the evidence. Though the learned
counsel representing the appellants made sincere attempt, however, he failed
to draw the attention of the Court to any substantive error. He also failed to
put forth any significant argument, "How the First Appellate Court has
calculated the share of Navdeep Kaur to the extent of 1/12 th instead of
2024:PHHC:010408
1/9th?" It is evident that Chhajja Singh had left behind only females. Thus,
there will be a deemed partition as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to
interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by the First Appellate Court.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. However, the cross-objections are
allowed. The suit of the plaintiff shall stand decreed to the extent of 1/9 th
share instead of 1/12th.
10. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
January 25, 2024
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
