Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2024
110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-5895-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.07.2024
Manjit Kaur ...Plaintiff/ Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
CM-16852--C-2019
This is an application for condonation of delay of 08 days in
refilling the appeal.
Notice of the application to non
non-applicants/ respondents.
Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court,
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent
respondent-State.
For the reason mentioned in the application which make
out sufficient cause to condone the delay in re-filing the appeal.. Thus,
the application is allowed. Delay of 08 days in re
re-filing
filing the appeal is
condoned.
MAIN CASE:
CASE
By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the
judgments and decrees dated 29.04.201
29.04.20199 and 02.12.2017 passed by
the Courts below, whereby a suit for declaration filed by plaintiff/
appellant,, challenging mutation No.2030
2030 entered on the basis of Civil
court decree dated 20.01.1986 in favour of deceased Kahla Singh
ingh
regarding the estate of Bachittar
Bachittar Singh, was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, dispute in the present case relates to the
estate of one Joginder Singh who owned 82 kanal 5 marla of land
situated in Village Thakarwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, and was
having two sons, namely, Bachittar
Bachittar Singh and Kahla Singh. Out of the
two, Bachittar Singh was unmarried; whereas Kahla Singh had one son
Manjit Singh and daughter Manjit Kaur (Plaintiff/ appellant). During his
life time, Joginder Singh executed a registered Will dated 31.
31.10.1979;
0.1979;
whereby ½ share of the property was bequeathed in favour of Manjit
Singh son of Kahla Singh; whereas as regards remaining ½ share, life
time interest was created in favour of Bachittar Singh and thereafter it
was to vest with Manjit Singh. After few
w years, Manjit Singh filed Civil
Suit No.155 dated 20.07.1985 against Bachittar Singh qua the
remaining ½ share of Joginder Singh. T
The
he said suit was decreed on
the basis of admission made by Bachittar Singh vide judgment and
decree dated 20.01.1986 in favour
favour of Manjit Singh followed by mutation
No. 2030.. Later, Bachittar Singh executed a Will dated 03.09.1996 in
favour of plaintiff/ appellant qua the same half share bequeathed in his
favour by Joginder Singh (though as a life estate) and after the death
of Bachittar Singh on 10.08.,1999, the plaintiff/ appellant being her
niece sought declaration qua Mutation No. 2030 entered in favour of
Manjit Singh while basing her claim on Will dated 03.09.1996.
3. On notice, defendants appeared but they failed to fil
file
e their
response and their defence was struck off, however, the defendants
were allowed to cross-examine
cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff as per law.
law
4. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.12.2017
dismissed the suit filed at the instance of pl
plaintiff/
aintiff/ appellant. Aggrieved
thereof, the plaintiff/ appellant filed first appeal before the Additional
District Judge, Ludhiana, however, the same was also dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 29.04.2019.
5. Impugning the aforesaid judgments and dec
decrees by way of
present appeal,
appeal the sole and limited contention raised on behalf of the
plaintiff/ appellant is that since Manjit Singh, pre
pre-deceased
deceased Bachittar
Singh, thus, ½ share of Joginder Singh though bequeathed in fav
favour
our of
Bachittar Singh as merely a life estate, yet he was having all rights to
execute the Will dated 03.09.1996 in favour of plaintiff/ appellant and
therefore, mutation No. 2030, entered in the name of Manjit Singh qua
the ½ share inherited from Joginder Singh, on the basis of civil Court
Cou
decree dated 20.01.1986 was illegal, null and void
void.
No other argument has been addressed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone
through the paper-book.
paper book. I am unable to find substance in the
submissions made on behalf of the plainti
plaintiff/ appellant.
7. The first and foremost question in the given facts would be
that the last wish expressed by the testator in his Will needs to be
shown utmost respect and importance. In the present case, Joginder
Singh, testator, executed a Will dated 31
31.10.1979
0.1979 whereby ½ share of
his ownership was bequeathed in favour of his grandson Manjit Singh
whereas qua the remaining half, Bachittar Singh was given life interest/
benefit to enjoy the fruits during his lifetime, but no rights to alienate
the same and after his life, it was to vest with Manjit Singh. In such
circumstances, the fact that Manjit Singh died on 12.07.1994 and
Bachittar Singh died on 10.08.1999 and as such Manjit Singh having
pre-deceased
deceased Bachittar Singh,, would not make any mate
material
rial difference
as regards the passing on the estate of Joginder Singh
Singh, in terms of
registered Will dated 31.10.1979
31. especially in the absence of any such
stipulation in the Will about the absolute vesting of ½ share in favour of
Bachittar Singh.
Singh
8. Moreover,
reover, in the circumstances wherein Bachittar Singh,
during his life time never ever questioned the validity and veracity of
the judgment and decree dated 20.01.1986 suffered by him in favour of
his real nephew Manjit Singh followed by Mutation No.2030 in this
regard, no illegality or perversity can be found with the findings
recorded by the Courts below in this regard
regard.
9. Equally important, the trial Court well within its legal
discretion non-suited the plaintiff/ appellant on the ground of non-
non
joinder/mis
is-joinder
joinder of necessary parties as none of the subsequent
purchasers from Manjit Singh, in pursuance to mutation No.2030 in his
name were impleaded as party/ defendants in the suit thereby
depriving them of an opportunity to defend their rights being of
bonafide
nafide purchasers against valuable consideration.
10. Resultantly, in view of the detailed discussion made
hereinabove, there being no misreading of the pleadings or the
evidence available on record, neither any documentary or oral
evidence been misconstrued by the Courts below, the present regular
second appeal being devoid of merits, is thus dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
03.07.2024
4 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sanjay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
