Hindu Succession Act, 1957 - Case Law – Section 11
Charan Singh v. Major Singh
Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Issue:
- Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree of declaration that they along with defendants No.8 to 10 are entitled to inheritance of deceased Bhagat Singh to the extent of 1/6 share out of suit property?
- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 4 from interfering in their possession and dispossessing them from their share along with defendants No.8 to 10 and further restraining defendants No.1 to 4 from alienating the suit land forcibly?
- Whether deceased Thakur Singh executed a Will dated 27.08.1982 in favour of defendants No.1 to 4?
Facts:
- The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the appellants-plaintiffs and defendants No.8 to 10 are entitled to the inheritance of Bhagat Singh (since deceased) son of Ishar Singh to the extent of 1/6th share out of the total land measuring 73 kanals 12 marlas consisting, as mentioned in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1981-82 situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhikhiwind.
- Bhagat Singh died issueless and widowless. Bhagat Singh had also some agricultural land in village Bhikhiwind other than the property in dispute and after the death of Bhagat Singh, mutation of his inheritance qua the said land was sanctioned in favour of Thakur Singh being one of the brother of Bhagat Singh to the extent of ½ share, and in favour of Hazara Singh and Makhan Singh both sons of Ujagar Singh to the extent of ¼ share each
- Appellants No.1 and 2/plaintiffs No.1 and 2, who are sons of Hazara Singh s/o Ujagar Singh and appellants No.3 to 6/plaintiffs No.3 to 6, who are sons, daughter and widow of Ajit Singh s/o Hazara Singh s/o Ujagar Singh submitted that they are in possession of their share inherited by them qua the estate of Bhagat Singh through their predecessor-in-interest Ujagar Singh and they were under impression that mutation qua the inheritance of Bhagat Singh would have been sanctioned in their favour as mutation of 2 of 7 other land has already been sanctioned.
- It is further averred that respondents No.1 to 4/defendants No.1 to 4 have alleged that they all have inherited the entire estate of deceased Bhagat Singh and also alleged that no one is entitled to his inheritance except respondents No.1 to 4/defendants No.1 to 4. The appellants-plaintiffs were surprised to see that respondents No.1 to 4/defendants No.1 to 4 have been shown as owners of 2/3rd share in connivance with revenue agency without any notice to all the legal heirs of Bhagat Singh.
Appellant’s contentions:
- The appellants argues that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are perverse and liable to be set aside, as the courts below have not applied judicious mind.
- It is contended that finding of both the courts below on issue No.1 are against the law and the facts of the case.
Respondent’s contentions:
- On 4 of 7 behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs on his own and files the memo of appearance, which is taken on record. It is argued that both the courts below have rightly declined the relief to the appellants-plaintiffs, while passing the well reasoned judgments.
Final Decision:
The court found no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings so recorded by both the courts below. As such, no question of law requiring determination arises in this regular second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff, which has no merit.
