Shaminder Kaur and Another vs Paramjit Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 2188-C of 2010:

Cost amount has been deposited. Accordingly, the appeal stands restored to its original number.

Main Appeal:

Plaintiffs Shaminder Kaur and her mother Surjit Kaur, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below, are in second appeal.

Plaintiffs alleged that they are daughter and widow respectively of Jarnail Singh. It is undisputed that defendant No. 1 is son of Jarnail Singh and defendants No. 4 to 6 are daughters of Jarnail Singh born out of his marriage with Gurnam Kaur.

Plaintiffs'' claim is that after death of Gurnam Kaur, Jarnail Singh performed marriage with Surjit Kaur - plaintiff-appellant No. 2 and out of this wedlock, plaintiff-appellant No. 1 Shaminder Kaur was born. The plaintiffs have further alleged that Jarnail Singh was owner in possession of 394 kanals 06 marlas land in suit. He died intestate and on his death, both plaintiffs and respondents No. 1 and 4 to 6, being his legal heirs, inherited one-sixth share each. The plaintiffs accordingly claimed joint possession of one-third share of the suit land.

Defendants controverted the plaint allegations. Relationship of plaintiffs with Jarnail Singh was denied. However, relationship of defendants with Jarnail Singh was admitted. It may be mentioned that defendants No. 2 and 3 are son and wife respectively of defendant No. 1 i.e. grandson and daughter-in-law of Jarnail Singh. It was pleaded by defendant No. 1 that he is owner in possession of 139 kanals land out of the suit land as per decree dated 24.07.1972 suffered in his favour by Jarnail Singh. It was also pleaded that Jarnail Singh also executed registered Will dated 24.09.1969 in favour of defendant No. 1. Defendants No. 2 and 3 pleaded that they are owners in possession of half share each of the remaining 255 kanals 06 marlas land in terms of decree dated 20.07.1990 in favour of defendant No. 3 and decree dated 29.03.1996 in favour of defendant No. 2 suffered by Jarnail Singh. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2007, dismissed the plaintiffs'' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2008 and cross-objections preferred by defendant No. 1 in the said appeal have also been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.

Courts below have found that plaintiffs are daughter and widow of Jarnail Singh. However, courts below have upheld the decrees in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 suffered by Jarnail Singh regarding the suit land and also the Will executed by Jarnail Singh in favour of defendant No. 1.

Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that since appellants are daughter and widow respectively of Jarnail Singh, they have inherited one-third share in the suit land, which was owned by Jarnail Singh. It was also contended that suit land was ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of Jarnail Singh and therefore, he could not transfer the same to defendants No. 1 to 3 by way of consent decrees or Will.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find no merit therein.

There is not even iota of documentary evidence on record to R. S. A. No. 2118 of 2008 (O&M) 4 depict that suit land was ancestral or coparcenary property in the hands of Jarnail Singh. Consequently, finding of the courts below to this effect does not suffer from any illegality. On the other hand, it is duly proved by evidence on record that Jarnail Singh suffered three separate decrees in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 and accordingly, they have become owners in possession of the suit land, as pleaded by them. Will in favour of defendant No. 1 has also been proved. Consequently, plaintiffs have been rightly non-suited by the courts below. Since the suit land is not proved to be ancestral or coparcenary property in the hands of Jarnail Singh and since during the lifetime of Jarnail Singh, defendants No. 1 to 3 had become owners in possession of the suit land, the plaintiffs did not inherit any share in the suit land from Jarnail Singh. It may be added that Jarnail Singh, during his lifetime, never challenged the aforesaid consent decrees or the Will in question.

There is concurrent finding by both the courts below based on appreciation of evidence and supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.