Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kesar Singh vs Nirmala Devi And Ors on 6 November, 2025
RSA-145-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
114 RSA-145-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.11.2025
Kesar Singh ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Nirmala Devi and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate for the appellant.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against
the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below,
whereby suit filed by the appellant for joint possession as owner of the
suit land, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
2. The case as pleaded in the plaint is that the plaintiff and
defendants No. 1 to 3 are related and form Joint Hindu Family. Therefore,
plaintiff has right in the suit land. However, the defendants were depriving
him of said right. Accordingly, plaintiff had filed instant suit on 22.12.2010.
3. Vide judgment and decree dated 21.03.2017, learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Ambala had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The
appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned additional
District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 15.07.2021.
Hence, present Second Appeal by the plaintiff.
RSA-145-2022 (O&M) -2-
4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff that the learned Courts below were in error in non-
suiting the appellant as they failed to appreciate that defendant No.3 had
inherited the suit property from his father Puran Singh. As such, being a
coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family, plaintiff had got a birth right in the suit
land. It is contended that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate
that ancestral/coparcenary property will not lose its nature and character
in the hands of defendant No.3 merely because it was inherited by him
through Will from his father. The Courts below failed to appreciate that
plaintiff cannot be divested of his birth right in the ancestral property by
suffering a Consent Decree by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants
No.1 and 2. Moreover, defendant No.1 being daughter-in-law of
defendant No.3 had no pre-existing right in the property in question. As
such, Consent Decree dated 03.03.1989 (Ex.P4) required compulsory
registration. However, this fact has not been considered by both the
Courts below.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that both
the Courts below did not consider that mere taking of some land by way
of Relinquishment Deed dated 25.05.2002 (Ex.D1) from Defendant No. 2,
does not take away the right of the Plaintiff as a coparcener in the
ancestral property, rather it gives strength to the genuineness/legality of
the claim of the Plaintiff. As such the impugned judgments and decrees
passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside.
RSA-145-2022 (O&M) -3-
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that it is well settled that Consent Decree cannot be permitted regarding
ancestral land by ignoring the rights of any coparcener. Whereas the
Consent Decree dated 03.03.1989 (Ex.P-4) was passed in favour of
Defendants without impleading the Plaintiff as a party.
7. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed;
and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below be set
aside.
8. No other argument is raised on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff. I have heard ld. counsel and perused case file in detail.
I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.
9. First and foremost, the appellant has failed to establish
ancestral nature of the suit property. The record reveals that as per
Mutation No. 439 Ex.P6 Nasib Singh/defendant No.3/father of the
plaintiff/appellant had inherited the property by virtue of registered Will
No. 115/1 dated 05.01.1976. Clearly therefore, suit property was not
ancestral in nature. Therefore, plaintiff can claim no birthright in the suit
property. Consequentially, the Consent judgment and decree dated
03.03.1989 Ex.P4 was legal.
10. Even otherwise, suit of the plaintiff was hopelessly time
barred. By way of instant suit, the plaintiff has laid challenge to the
judgment and decree dated 03.03.1989 only in the year 2010. No valid
explanation has been given by the plaintiff for this delay.
RSA-145-2022 (O&M) -4-
11. Further plaintiff himself as PW1 has admitted in his cross-
examination that suit land was sold by Ishar Singh and Nirmala Devi to
defendants No. 4 and 5 and that he has no concern with the same. Nor
has plaintiff challenged the Sale Deed executed in their favour.
12. It is also to be appreciated that on the one hand, the plaintiff
is challenging the right of the defendants to alienate the suit property; on
the other hand, plaintiff himself has admitted entry in the Relinquishment
Deed dated 25.05.2002 Ex.D1. It is further evident from the record that as
per Mutation Ex.P7, it is recorded that Nasib Singh had entered into
partition with his uncle Pritam son of Massaudi and the suit property had
been partitioned. Thus, partition had been approved and Tatima had been
effected. For this reason, as well, suit property became self acquired
property of the respective share holders.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert or
dispute the above said facts and findings.
14. In view of the above, I find no ground is made out to interfere
in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. The
present Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.
15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
06.11.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
