[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Kaur Shergil vs Balbir Singh Shergil And Ors on 19 December, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-5047-2018 (O&M)
Reserved on : 15.12.2025
Pronounced on : 19.12.2025
Judgment uploaded on : 19.12.2025
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the
full judgment is pronounced : Full
Hardeep Kaur Shergil ....Appellant
VERSUS
Balbir Singh Shergil (deceased) through ....Respondents
LRs and Others
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. Present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-
appellant aggrieved by the judgments and decrees dated 01.04.2017 and
16.01.2018 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court,
respectively.
2. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellant herein filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that she is
owner of 1/4th share in the land fully described in the plaint. It was the case
set up by the plaintiff-appellant that the land was owned by her forefathers,
which was allotted to them when they migrated to India at the time of partition.
The grandfather of the plaintiff-appellant, namely, Bakhshish Singh was
allotted land in village Pholriwal, Tehsil and District Jalandhar hence, it was
ancestral in nature. The last owner of the land was Aroor Singh and after his
death Bakhshish Singh, grandfather of the plaintiff-appellant, inherited the
1 of 4
land and upon his death the land was inherited by his five sons including father
of the plaintiff-appellant, namely, Balbir Singh (defendant-respondent No.1).
It was further the case set up that defendant-respondent No.1 - Balbir Singh -
had purchased the land in the name of Sandeep Singh (defendant-respondent
No.2) and Amandeep Singh from the proceeds earned from the ancestral land
situated in village Pholriwal. Notice was issued to the defendants. Defendant-
respondent No.3 failed to appear. Defendant-respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed
their written statements. It was averred by defendant-respondent No.1 in his
written statement that the suit land was purchased by him in the names of his
sons Sandeep Singh (defendant-respondent No.2) and Amandeep Singh from
his own earnings. Defendant-respondent Nos.2 and 4 stated in their written
statement that they are owners in possession of the suit property and
defendant-respondent No.1 had executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff-
appellant gifting her 20 Kanals of land in village Pholriwal and also gifted 08
Kanals of land in village Usmanpur. It was further the case set up that the suit
property was self-acquired property of defendant-respondent No.1 - Balbir
Singh.
3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed :
1. Whether plaintiff is owner of 1/4th share of the suit
property ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration
as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD
4. Whether suit of the plaintiff is within limitation ? OPD
5. Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of the
necessary parties ? OPD
2 of 4
6. Whether plaintiff has concealed true and material facts ?
OPD
7. Relief
4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017
dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove the
ancestral nature of the suit property as also holding that the suit was barred by
limitation. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-
appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide
judgment and decree dated 16.01.2018. Hence, the present regular second
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that
the suit property was ancestral in the hands of defendant-respondent No.1 -
Balbir Singh - and that the property purchased by him subsequently in the
names of his minor sons was purchased from the proceeds received from the
ancestral property, which was inherited by him from his father Bakhshish
Singh hence, both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-
appellant.
6. Heard.
7. In the present case both the Courts concurrently found that there
was not an iota of evidence which was led by the plaintiff-appellant to even
remotely suggest that the suit property was ancestral in nature. The plaintiff-
appellant failed to lead any cogent evidence to show that the suit property was
ancestral in the hands of defendant-respondent No.1 - Balbir Singh. It has
come in evidence that defendant-respondent No.1 - Balbir Singh - was running
a dairy farm having 40-50 buffaloes. Further, during the cross-examination of
PW-2 Bhupinder Singh it was elicited that defendant-respondent No.1 - Balbir
Singh - father of plaintiff-appellant herein, had during his lifetime given land
3 of 4
to the plaintiff-appellant by way of gift. The onus to prove that the land
purchased by defendant-respondent No.1 - Balbir Singh - in the names of his
sons, namely, Sandeep Singh and Amandeep Singh was purchased from the
income from the ancestral land situated in village Pholriwal was upon the
plaintiff-appellant, who failed to discharge the same. It has further come in
evidence that defendant-respondent No.1 - Balbir Singh - had inherited the
property from his father Bakhshish Singh on the basis of a Will, which was
apparent from the order dated 11.08.1971 (Ex.P3) regarding which mutation
No.3835 was sanctioned in favour of defendant-respondent No.1 - Balbir
Singh - on the basis of the Will executed by his father Bakhshish Singh.
8. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence having been
led by the plaintiff-appellant to show that the land purchased by defendant-
respondent No.1 - Balbir Singh - was purchased by him from the funds and
nucleus of the alleged ancestral land situated in village Pholriwal, no fault can
be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises
in the present case. The appeal, being devoid of any merits, is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
19.12.2025 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
4 of 4
