Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhvir Kaur vs Paramjit Kaur And Ors on 19 March, 2025
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037301
CR-5461-2023 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
122
CR-5461-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.03.2025
LAKHVIR KAUR ..Petitioner
Versus
PARAMJIT KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate
Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on 06.03.2025, the
following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that legal
representative of the original defendant cannot be
permitted to take different/contradictory stand from the
stand taken by the original defendant while filing the
written statement. He has drawn the attention of the
Court to the original written statement filed by defendant
No.1 Sh. Pritam Singh at page 14. He contends that Sh.
Pritam Singh admitted that he executed a transfer deed in
favour of his daughter-in-law i.e. Smt. Lakhwinder Kaur
(defendant No.3) because his son Sh. Jagdeep @ Happy
died and defendant No.3 was serving all the defendants.
He submits that now Sh. Pritam Singh has died and
Smt. Joginder Kaur was brought on record as widow of
Sh. Pritam Singh. She initially moved application for
filing supplementary written statement, which was
rejected, however, subsequently, she filed application for
permission to change the entire stand, which has been
allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner was
requested to show the amended written statement filed by
Smt. Joginder Kaur, however, he prays for some time to
produce the same.
List on 18.03.2025, in the urgent list.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037301
CR-5461-2023 (O&M) -2-
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Gajraj Vs.
Sudha and others, (1999) 3 SCC 109, Vidyawati Vs.
Man Mohan and others, (1995) AIR (SC) 1653 and Bal
Kishan Vs. Om Parkash and another, (1986) AIR (SC)
1952."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of
comparative chart reflecting the original stand taken by Sh. Pritam Singh
(defendant No.1) while filing the written statement and the amended written
statement filed by his legal representative, which reads as under:-
W.S. of Defendant NO.1 Pritam Singh W.S. of Joginder Kaur (LR of Pritam
Annexure P-3 Singh)
C.M. No.5087-CII of 2025
(Annexure P-22)
However the Transfer Deed executed by However the Transfer deed executed by the
defendant No1 Pritam Singh in favour of defendant no.1 Pritam Singh in favour of
defendant No.3 Lakhvir Kaur is a genuine defendant no.3 Lakhvir Kaur is not genuine
document, who is daughter-in-law of the document who is daughter in law of the
defendant No.1 Pritam Singh. Jagdeep defendant no.1 Pritam Singh. Jagdeep
Singh @ Happy son of the replying Singh alias Happy son of the replying
defendant has since died. The defendant defendant has since died. The defendant
No.3 Lakhvir kaur is serving the replying no.3 Lakhvir Kaur is not serving the
defendant in all respects. The replying replying defendant in all respect. It is
defendant has given every share to his wrong and denied that the replying
other children i.e. daughters who have defendant has given every share to his
been married and are happy in their in other children i.e. daughters who have
laws as such the replying defendant with been married and are happy in their in
his sound state of mind executed the laws as such the replying defendant with
transfer deed of the property in question in his sound disposing state of mind executed
favour of defendant No,.3 Lakhvir kaur the Transfer Deed of the property in
voluntarily and without any pressure. question in favour of the defendant No.3
Lakhvir Kaur voluntarily and without any
pressure.
Rather the true facts are that the Transfer Rather the true facts are that the transfer
Deed executed by defendant No1 Pritam deed executed by the defendant No.1
Singh in favour of defendant No.3 Lakhvir Pritam Singh in favour of defendant No.3
Kaur is a genuine document, who is Lakhvir kaur is not genuine document, who
daughter-in-law of the defendant No.1 is daughter-in-law of defendant No.1
Pritam Singh. Jagdeep Singh @ Happy son Pritam Singh. Jagdeep Singh @ Happy son
of the replying defendant has since died. of relying defendant has since died. The
The defendant No.3 Lakhvir kaur is serving defendant N.o.3 Lakhvir kaur is not serving
the replying defendant in all respects. The the replying defendant in all respect.
replying defendant has given every share to
his other children i.e. daughters who have
been married and are happy in their in
laws as such the replying defendant with
his sound state of mind executed the
transfer deed of the property in question in
favour of defendant No,,3 Lakhvir kaur
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037301
CR-5461-2023 (O&M) -3-
voluntarily and without any pressure.
Page Nos.26-27 Para 8 Page No.5 Para No.8
That the replying defendant has executed The contents of this para are replied in a
the transfer deed in favour of the defendant way that the replying defendant has not
no.3 within his own right and with his executed the transfer deed in favour of
sound disposing state of mind of which the defendant No.3 within his own right and
replying defendant had every right to with his sound disposing state of mind.
transfer his ownership property in the
manners he likes. It is wrong and denied
that the said transfer deed is illegal null
and void, ultra vires arbitrary malafide
unlawful or is inoperative and ineffective
qua the rights of the plaintiff as the plaintiff
has got no right, title interest link and
concern with the suit property in any way.
Page No.27 Para No.9 Page no.5 Para No.9
It is wrong and denied that there is any The contents of this para are wrong and
connivance of the defendant No.1 to 4 as denied.
alleged. Rather the replying defendant
transferred the suit property within his own
right and plaintiff or anybody else has no
concern with the same.
Page No.27 Para No.10 Page no.5 Para No.10
The sale deed has already taken place The sale deed has taken place which is not
which is genuine document. genuine document.
3. Learned counsel for respondent does not dispute the aforesaid
factual position.
4. It appears that the trial Court has overlooked the well-settled
position of law as enumerated by Order XXII Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, as interpreted in the afore-noted judgment.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order
passed by the trial Court on 04.08.2023 shall stand set aside and the trial
Court will pass fresh order on an application filed by the Smt. Joginder Kaur.
6. With these observations, the revision petition is allowed.
7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 19th, 2025 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
