Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


JAGTAR KAUR & Anr v. MANJIT SINGH - RSA-1764-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 24 (26 May 2005)

R.S.A.No.1764 of 2005

Smt.Jagtar Kaur & Another v. Manjit Singh Present:- Mr.Rajesh K.Dadwal, Advocate,

for the appellant.


Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

There is a delay of 84 days in refiling the present appeal. For the reasons mentioned in C.M.No.4695-C of 2005, the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

Jagtar Kaur and Manjinder Kaur have filed this appeal to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.

The undisputed facts of the present case are that upon the death of Sardara Singh, the suit property measuring 15 Kanals 7 Marlas was jointly inherited by his widow Smt.Gurdev Kaur (now deceased) and his three married daughters, namely, Smt. Balbir Kaur (now deceased), Smt.Jagtar Kaur and Smt.Manjinder Kaur, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 after the death of their mother Smt.Gurdev Kaur. Smt.Balbir Kaur deceased was married to Manjit Singh plaintiff. On 23.10.1996 she gave birth to a son, namely, Gurjit Singh, and R.S.A.No.1764 of 2005

immediately thereafter she died. The son Gurjit Singh lived for 1-1/2 years and after that he too died on 4.4.1998. After the death of Gurjit Singh, Smt.Gurdev Kaur, mother of Smt.Balbir Kaur, succeeded in getting mutation No.5529 dated 30.10.1999 sanctioned in her favour qua the property which Smt.Balbir Kaur had inherited after the death of her father Sardara Singh. This action of Smt.Gurdev Kaur defendant (now deceased) was challenged by Manjit Singh in the present suit. During the pendency of the suit, Smt.Gurdev Kaur also died and she has been represented by her daughters, namely, Smt.Jagtar Kaur (defendant No.1) and Smt.Manjinder Kaur (defendant No.2). The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, vide judgment and decree dated 4.8.2003. The appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Ludhiana., vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.2004. Now the defendants have filed the present appeal wherein challenge has been made to the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.

The following question of law arises for consideration before this Court in the present appeal:-

Whether or not the property inherited by a Hindu female from her father, who died intestate leaving behind her son and husband, would devolve upon the heirs of her father? R.S.A.No.1764 of 2005

The facts, as narrated above, are not disputed by the appellants. The only argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that after the death of Gurjit Singh on 4.4.1998, the property inherited by Smt.Balbir Kaur from her father would devolve upon the heirs of the father as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The contention is meritless in view of the provisions of Section 15(2)(a) of the Act. As per clause (a) of sub- section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, the property would devolve upon the heirs of the father of a Hindu female only in the absence of any son or daughter. In case at the time of her death, a son or daughter of the Hindu female survives, then the property would devolve upon the son or the daughter, if any along with her husband as per provisions of Section 15(1)(a) of the Act. In the present case at the time of the death of Smt.Balbir Kaur, her son Gurjit Singh was alive. Thus, the property was to be inherited by Gurjit Singh along with the husband of Smt.Balbir Kaur, i.e., Manjit Singh plaintiff in one-half share each. After the death of Gurjit Singh, the property inherited by him from his mother Smt.Balbir Kaur, would be inherited by his father Manjit Singh. Smt.Gurjit Kaur, mother of Smt.Balbir Kaur, was entitled to inherit the property left behind by the latter, only in the event of Smt.Balbir Kaur dying without giving birth to a son or a daughter. In the present case, such an eventuality did not arise. Her son of Gurjit Singh continued R.S.A.No.1764 of 2005

surviving for one and a half years after the death of his mother. Thus, Smt.Gurdev Kaur had wrongly got the mutation sanctioned in her name after the death of Gurjit Singh. As per law in the Hindu Succession Act, only Majit Singh, father of Gurjit Singh, was entitled to inherit the property after his death.

In the light of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the well- reasoned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.

Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

May 17, 2005. ( Ashutosh Mohunta )

KKP Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.