High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Sabinder Singh & Ors. v. Jaspal Kaur - RSA-4963-2001  RD-P&H 4459 (20 July 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
R.S.A. No. 4963 of 2001.
Date of Decision: July 14, 2006.
Sabinder Singh & Ors.
Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate
Mr. R.N.Moudgil, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL)
This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by defendants against whom a suit for declaration that the respondent-plaintiff (since deceased and being represented by his legal representatives) is in joint possession along with his grand father (Nathu) and Nathu's other sons, has been decreed by both the Courts.
In order to appreciate the controversy, the facts are briefly stated as under:-
Nathu son of Bishna had four sons, namely, (i) Sabinder Singh, (ii) Nachattar Singh, (iii) Prem Singh and (iv) Bant Singh, out of whom Bant Singh predeceased his father. Nathu suffered a collusive decree dated RSA No.4963 of 2001. :-2-:
31.8.1992 in favour of his two sons, namely, Prem Singh and Nachattar Singh. The aforesaid collusive decree was challenged by Nathu's another son, namely, Sabinder Singh. Though, he claimed the property in dispute to be joint Hindu coparcenary property, the said Sabinder Singh also wanted to exclude the legal representatives of his deceased brother (Bant Singh) and as such did not implead them in the suit. Having come to know about the passing of decree in the aforesaid civil suit, Harpal Singh (since deceased) son of Bant Singh respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration that he was joint owner in possession of the suit land along with his grand father Nathu and his other sons, referred to above. It may be mentioned here that when Harpal Singh son of Bant Singh filed the present suit, his grand father (Nathu) and two uncles (Nachhattar Singh and Prem Singh) admitted his claim and supported the suit. Sabinder Singh, however, contested the same.
Both the Courts have concurrently held that the suit land is a Joint Hindu family coparcenary property and that the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1992 suffered by Nathu in favour of his two sons (Prem Singh and Nachattar Singh) had no binding effect upon the rights of the respondent-plaintiff.
The first Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 8.10.2001 has modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent that the shares of all the co-sharers in the Joint Hindu family property including that of Sabinder Singh have been reflected.
Aggrieved, Sabinder Singh as well as Nachattar Singh and Prem Singh have filed this Regular Second Appeal.
Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, RSA No.4963 of 2001. :-3-:
respondents have put in appearance.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments.
As far as Nachhattar Singh and Prem Singh are concerned, their appeal is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that they have already conceded and admitted the claim of the respondent-plaintiff. Having admitted so, they can not be permitted to assail the judgments based on their admission.
Insofar as Sabinder Singh is concerned, he is estopped by his own act and conduct. In his separate civil suit which he had filed challenging the collusive decree dated 31.8.1992, suffered by his father (Nathu), in favour of his two brothers (Prem Singh and Nachhattar Singh), he took a categoric plea that the suit land was a Joint Hindu family coparcenary property. He can not wriggle out from the said admission, more so when the respondent-plaintiff, by leading independent evidence, has been able to establish that the suit land is actually joint Hindu family coparcenary property. If that is so, there is no denial to the fact that Harpal Singh (since deceased)-respondent/plaintiff, being the legal heir of Bant Singh, who was admittedly son of Nathu, and had predeceased his father, is entitled to the share of his father (Bant Singh) in the suit land.
For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
July 14, 2006. ( SURYA KANT )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.