Asha Rani And ORS v. Rajwanti

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:26.09.2016 Asha Rani and others ... Appellants Vs.

Rajwanti ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) C.M.No.8715-C-2016 Deficiency of the court fees, has been made good. C.M. stands disposed of.

The appellant-defendants are aggrieved of the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, the suit for partition and possession vis-a-vis the estate of Surinder Kumar, husband of appellant No.1, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

Mr. Parminder Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendants submits that during the pendency of the suit, the father-in-law, i.e., husband of the respondent-plaintiff has also died and he has left behind a Will. Surinder Kumar died leaving behind three legal heirs, i.e., one son and daughter and wife, appellant No.1. No doubt, mother being

{2} first class legal heir is also entitled to the share in the property. He further submits that there are chances of compromise, in case, the property left behind by father-in-law is also settled and the parties are called before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendants and appraised the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. During the course of hearing, this Court raised the question as to whether with regard to estate of father-in-law, the suit has been filed or not, the answer given was in positive. Once the party had already availed the remedy and the property is not subject matter to this Regular Second Appeal, the appellants should not have argued the matter. It is strange that without disclosing the factum of suit qua estate of father-in-law, learned counsel for the appellant has argued the matter, as noticed above.

As far as, merits of the case is concerned, it is a conceded position on record that Surinder Kumar died intestate and he is survived by appellants, one son and one daughter and his mother being first class legal and accordingly, the Courts below have rightly granted 1/4th share each in the suit property.

In view of the aforementioned observations, I do not intend to differ with the findings rendered by both the Courts below which are based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court.

{3} Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 26, 2016 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No