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


Lakhwant Kumar & Anr v. Jagjit Lal & Ors - RSA-4521-2001 [2006] RD-P&H 2027 (27 March 2006)

R.S.A. No.4521 of 2001(O&M) 1


R.S.A. No.4521 of 2001(O&M)

Date of decision: April 4,2006

Lakhwant Kumar and another V. Jagjit Lal and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Gurnam Singh,Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5,6,8 and 9.

Darshan Lal,respondent No.4 in person.

Viney Mittal,J.

The plaintiffs are in appeal. They have remained concurrently unsuccessful before the two courts below.

Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for joint possession on January 27,1987 It was claimed by them that Chuni Lal, their grand-father, was originally owner of the suit property. House in question was allotted to him by the Rehabilitation Department and land had been allotted to him being Nazool land being a scheduled caste. Chuni Lal was married to Laxmi and out of the aforesaid wedlock, Darshan Lal,defendant No.5,(father of the plaintiffs) was born. Later on Chuni Lal kept one Bhan Kaur as his keep illegally and had two sons and one daughter ( defendants No. 2 to 4), from the aforesaid relationship. Plaintiffs alleged that a will dated January 15,1981 was executed by Chuni Lal in their favour bequeathing 9/10 share of his estate in favour of the plaintiffs and 1/10 share in favour of Bhan Kaur. Aforesaid Chuni Lal died on January 16,1981 i.e. the next day. Plaintiffs alleged that they came into possession of the suit property and some construction had been raised by their father Darhsan Lal.

Consequently, plaintiffs claimed that they are owners in joint possession of suit property.

Plaintiffs further alleged that a gift deed dated September 26.1969 had been got executed by Jagjit Lal,defendant No.2, with regard to R.S.A. No.4521 of 2001(O&M) 2

some portion of the property belonging to Chuni Lal. Later on a sale deed dated July 17,1980 had been got executed by aforesaid Jagjit Lal from Chuni Lal. Jagjit Lal had got executed a general power of attorney in favour of Amar Nath. Jagjit Lal himself executed a sale deed dated 31,1981 in favour of defendants No.6 and 7 who further sold the suit property in favour of defendants No.8 and 9 on April 8,1982. Plaintiffs claimed that the sale deed executed by Jagjit Lal were illegal, bad without any authority and not binding upon their rights.

The suit was contested by the defendants. Besides the contest on merits, the defendants pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The execution of any sale deed dated January 15,1981 by Chuni Lal in favour of the plaintiffs was also denied. Defendants also reiterated the validity of the sale deeds executed by Jagjit Lal and subsequently by vendees. The defendants also maintained that Chuni Lal was married to Bhan Kaur and from the aforesaid wedlock,Jagjit Lal,son, and two daughters were born.

The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Besides holding that the suit was barred by limitation, the learned trial court also held that no such will dated January 15,1981 as claimed by the plaintiffs was ever executed by Chuni Lal. It was also held that Chuni Lal was married to Bhan Kaur and Jagjit Lal was his son. The learned trial court also noticed that Darshan Lal father of the plaintiffs had earlier lost his litigation claiming rights in the suit property through a judgment dated August 21,1982, Ex.D2. In these circumstances, it was held that the plaintiffs who were claiming through Darhsan Lal had no right to file the suit,once the will in their favour was also held to be not proved.

Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court.

An appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed by the learned appellate court. Identical findings were recorded by the learned first appellate court as well.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and Darshan Lal,defendant No.5 who has chosen to appear in person.

Shri Naresh Prabhakar,learned counsel appearing for the appellants has primarily challenged the findings recorded by the two courts R.S.A. No.4521 of 2001(O&M) 3

below with regard to the will dated January 15,1981.It has been contended by the learned counsel that the aforesaid will was duly proved. Learned counsel has further argued that the sale deed executed by Jagjit Lal was totally without any authority since Jagjit Lal had no authority to sell the estate belonging to Chuni Lal. Learned counsel has also argued that since the land in question was allotted to Chuni Lal as Nazool land by the Rehabilitation Department,therefore, neither Chuni Lal nor Jagjit Lal had any authority to alienate the suit property.

I have duly considered the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel but find myself unable to agree with the same.

The will in question is alleged to have been executed by Chuni Lal on January 15,1981. Admittedly Chuni Lal died on January 16,1981.The will in question is unregistered. As a matter of fact both the courts below have rejected the execution of the will by Chuni Lal. It has not been proved at all that Chuni Lal had ever executed any such will as claimed by the plaintiffs. Once the will in question is ruled out of consideration, then the plaintiffs have absolutely no locus standi to claim the estate left behind by Chuni Lal, in the life time of their father Darshan Lal. It is also apparent from the perusal of the record that Darshan Lal had earlier filed a suit claiming the suit property and had lost. Judgment Ex.D2 dated August 21,1982, is on the record. In the face of the judgment Ex.D2 and in the light of the findings on the will Ex.P1, the plaintiffs cannot be heard to claim any rights in the suit property. Even otherwise the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been held to be barred by limitation.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,arises in the present appeal.


In view of the dismissal of the present appeal, CM No.3066-C of 2006 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

April 4,2006 (Viney Mittal )

sks 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.