Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALBIR SINGH & ORS versus SANT KAUR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Balbir Singh & Ors v. Sant Kaur - CR-2455-1993 [2006] RD-P&H 2281 (4 April 2006)

C.R. No. 2455 of 1993 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R. No. 2455 of 1993

Date of Decision: 19.4.2006

Balbir Singh and others ....Petitioners.

Versus

Sant Kaur ...Respondent.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri R.K. Battas, Advocate and

Shri Raman Mohinder, Advocate, for the petitioners.

None for the respondent.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 27.7.1993, whereby an application filed by Sant Kaur defendant was accepted and the objection filed by the plaintiffs that the defendant cannot file a written statement different to the one filed by her predecessor-in-interest, was declined.

The plaintiffs are the brothers of deceased Simarjit Kaur. A suit for declaration has been filed by the plaintiffs alleging a family settlement with Simarjit Kaur. It is the case of the plaintiff that Simarjit Kaur entered into a family settlement in respect of the estate of her husband Kuldip Singh, who died leaving behind his wife Simarjit Kaur, Sant Kaur, his mother and his son Dilbagh Singh. Subsequently Dilbagh Singh also died and therefore, Simarjit Kaur entered into a family settlement with the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought a declaration to that effect.

In the said suit, an admission written statement was filed by Simarjit Kaur but after her death on 11.10.1992, the plaint was amended and C.R. No. 2455 of 1993 (2)

the defendant Sant Kaur was impleaded as legal heir of Simarjit Kaur. She being newly impleaded legal heir, has filed a written statement taking the pleas other than the one taken by Simarjit Kaur in the original written statement filed. It is the said written statement, which was opposed by the plaintiffs and such opposition has been found not to be sustainable vide order impugned in the present revision petition.

Since the property of Kuldip Singh was inherited by Simarjit Kaur after his death, prima-facie, the plaintiffs, brothers of Simarjit Kaur, cannot claim to have any right over the said property. Therefore, the defendant was perfectly justified in filing a written statement other than filed by Simarjit Kaur. Moreover, once the plaint is amended, it is open to the defendant to file the written statement taking pleas, which could be available to the defendants independent to the pleas raised in the original written statement.

In view above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.

19.4.2006 (Hemant Gupta)

ds Judge


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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