R.S.A No. 4245 of 2008(O&M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M.Nos.12716 & 17-C of 2008 and
R.S.A No. 4245 of 2008
Date of decision : December 24, 2008
Harphool Singh and others
...... Appellants.
through Mr.J.S.Chahal, Advocate
v.
Smt. Ajmero Devi and others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
C.M.No.12716-C of 2008
For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed and
delay of 53 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
C.M.No.12717-C of 2008
For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed and
delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
R.S.A No.4245 of 2008
This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the
Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants challenging the decree,
suffered by their sister with regard to her share of inherited land in favour of
the nephews of the parties.
R.S.A No. 4245 of 2008(O&M) ::2::
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that an
admission had been made by the beneficiaries of that decree that the land in
dispute had been inherited by Inder Singh (father of the appellants) from his
father.
The Courts below have found that land measuring 48 bighas
out of suit property was purchased by Inder Singh and two his brothers in
1918 and have, thus, not given any credence to the alleged admission of the
respondents. As regards the remaining property of Inder Singh i.e about 22
bighas, no evidence has been led by the appellants that the same devolved
upon Inder Singh from his ancestors. In the circumstances, no infirmity can
be found with the finding of the Courts below holding the property in
dispute to be non ancestoral in the hands of Inder Singh and consequently
holding that his daughter inherited equally as class-I heir.
Learned counsel has further argued that the decree in favour of
respondents No.2 and 3 was compulsorily registerable. The Courts below
have rightly found that since it was an absolute property of Ajmero Devi,
thus, the appellants have no locus to challenge her divestation on the ground
that the decree was compulsorily registerable.
In this view of the matter, the questions proposed are answered
against the appellants. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order
as to costs.
( AJAY TEWARI ) December 24, 2008. JUDGE `kk'