Satbir Kaur @ Satbeer Kaur v. Desh Raj And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.05.2026 Sr. No.201 TA-1300-2025 SATBIR KAUR @ SATBEER KAUR ....Applicant

Versus

DESH RAJ AND OTHERS .....Respondents Sr. No.202 TA-1301-2025 SATBIR KAUR ....Applicant

Versus

GAGANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present:- Ms. Manvi Verma, Amicus Curiae for the applicant (in both the applications). Mr. Nayandeep Rana and Mr. Neeraj Mann, Advocates for respondent No.1 (in TA-1300-2025) and for respondent No.2 (in TA-1301-2025).

None for respondents No.2 and 4 (in TA-1300-2025). None for respondent No.3 (in TA-1301-2025).

*****

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral) These are two transfer applications filed by the applicant-Satbir Kaur @ Satbeer Kaur, for seeking transfer of the litigation, pending between the parties to the lis.

TA-1300-2025 has been filed for seeking transfer of the civil suit i.e. CS/198/2024, titled 'Satbeer Kaur Vs. Desh Raj and others', filed at her instance.

TA-1301-2025 has been filed for seeking transfer of the civil suit i.e. CS/259/2021, titled 'Gagandeep Singh Vs. Satbir Kaur and others', filed by respondent No.1-Gagandeep Singh (husband of the applicant). Both the aforesaid suits are pending in the Courts at Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and the applicant is seeking transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ambala.

In pursuance of the notice issued, respondent No.1 (in TA-13002025) and respondent No.2 (in TA-1301-2025) made appearance through counsel and filed replies in the respective applications. However, despite service, respondents No.2 and 4 (in TA-1300-2025) and respondent No.3 (in TA-1301-2025), did not make appearance. As such, they are proceeded against ex parte.

Counsel for the parties heard.

For the convenience of discussion, the parties shall be referred to, as pleaded in TA-1300-2025.

At the very outset, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that marriage of the applicant-Satbir Kaur @ Satbeer Kaur, had taken place with respondent No.3-Gagandeep Singh, on 20.03.2017. Respondent No.1-Desh Raj is the grandfather-in-law, respondent No.2Amrik Singh, is father-in-law and respondent No.4-Saroj Bala, is mother-inlaw of the applicant. After marriage, the applicant and respondent No.3 had resided together and from their wedlock, one daughter-Navtaj Kaur, was born on 12.03.2018. The said child is in the care and custody of the applicant. Unfortunately, matrimonial dispute arose between the applicant and respondent No.3, as a result whereof, they are residing separate. Further, it is submitted that prior to the matrimonial dispute, respondent No.

3-Gagandeep Singh, had transferred some property in favour of the applicant, which forms the basis of the civil suit, copy whereof is Annexure P-1. However, now the applicant has the threat about interference in her possession over the property aforesaid, at the instance of her in-laws family, consisting of her husband, grandfather-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law and under the constrained circumstances, she had filed a suit, which is now pending in the Courts at Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. Even, suit filed by her husband-Gagandeep Singh, is pending in the Courts at Pehowa. Since, she is now residing at her parental place, together with her daughter, she has sought transfer of both the said suits, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ambala.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1, while making reference to the reply, resists the claim for transfer. In fact, it is submitted that respondent No.1-Desh Raj (grandfather-in-law of the applicant) was the owner in possession of the land measuring 144 kanals. Out of love and affection and with the condition about the family members to look after him, in his old age, he had transferred 1/3rd share each, in favour of his two sons i.e. Gulzar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh and his grandson, namely, Gagandeep Singh, son of his other son-Amrik Singh, vide registered transfer deed No.378 dated 05.06.2015. It is submitted that this transfer deed was executed by respondent No.1, with an assurance to provide services to him and look after him in his old age. Even, mutation No.524, on the basis of the family transfer deed, was executed on 09.

06.2015. However, after transfer of the aforesaid land, respondent No.3Gagandeep Singh, backed out from his commitment to look after respondent No.1. Further, to nullify the right of resumption of the property, respondent No.3 had further transferred the land received from respondent No.1, as stated aforesaid, to his mother-Saroj Bala i.e. respondent No.4 and his wifeSatbir Kaur @ Satbeer Kaur i.e. the present applicant, in equal share i.e. 24 kanals each, vide registered release deed Vasika No.221/1 dated 04.06.2018, relating to which mutation No.559 dated 05.06.2018, was also sanctioned. As such, it is submitted that the requisite transfer has been made with a malafide intention.

Further, it is submitted by the counsel that respondent No.1Desh Raj, has come to know about raising of loan against the aforesaid land, initially transferred to Gagandeep Singh, which was subsequently transferred in the names of Saroj Bala and Satbir Kaur @ Satbeer Kaur, to facilitate his going abroad. Also, it is submitted that in view of the aforesaid constrained circumstances, respondent No.1, had filed an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for setting aside the transfer deed Vasika No.378 dated 05.06.2015, initially executed by respondent No.1, in favour of respondent No.3, to the extent of 48 kanals and the subsequent transfer deed No.221 dated 04.06.2018, vide which the requisite land was transferred by respondent No.3, in favour of Saroj Bala and Satbir Kaur @ Satbeer Kaur.

Further, it is submitted that the aforesaid application filed by respondent No.1 was allowed by SDM, Pehowa. Thereupon, an appeal was filed by the applicant, which was accepted and the case was remanded back to SDM, Pehowa. Thereafter, respondent No.1 approached this Court, by way of filing CWP-24458-2021, which was decided in his favour and the case was again remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner. Subsequently, the appeal was filed by Satbir Kaur and the same is now pending in the Courts at Kurukshetra.

Furthermore, counsel for respondent No.1 makes reference to the voluminous litigation pending between the parties, which is detailed by Satbir Kaur @ Satbeer Kaur herself, in an affidavit annexed with CM-8056-

CII-2026, filed in TA-1300-2025. While making reference to the same, counsel submits that the applicant had though, sought transfer of the civil suits i.e. CS/198/2024 and CS/259/2021 from the Courts at Pehowa, but however, she has not sought transfer of other litigation, which is pending there. Also, it is submitted that as many as, 7 other cases between the parties, are still pending in the Courts at Kurukshetra. As such, it is submitted that if the applicant could pursue the other voluminous litigation, pending at Pehowa/Kurukshetra, then she can very well pursue the civil suits also, which are now sought to be transferred, more particularly, considering the age of respondent No.1, who is grandfather-in-law of the applicant.

In view of the submissions aforesaid, at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that while considering the transfer application, wherein woman is also a party, the Courts generally lean towards her convenience. However, the same is not a thumb rule. Various other circumstances, spelt out from the material brought on record, ought to be taken into consideration. In the case in hand, the applicant states about having a matrimonial dispute with her husband-Gagandeep Singh, respondent No.3, who has not come forward.

On query by this Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is residing separate from her husband, since the year 2018. With regard to the litigation, she has categorically admitted that till date, no divorce petition has been filed. It is only one litigation i.e. the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which has been filed by her, on account

of the matrimonial dispute with her husband. Further, it is submitted that interim maintenance was fixed by the Court, but however, respondent No.3 had not paid any maintenance. On further query, it is disclosed by the counsel that execution, relating to the order passed in the maintenance petition, has been filed, but till date, no effective order has been obtained, to procure the presence of respondent No.3-Gagandeep Singh. Also, on query, it is disclosed by the counsel for the applicant that the transfer of other litigation pending in Pehowa/Kurukshetra, as stated in the affidavit of Satbir Kaur @ Satbeer Kaur, has not been sought by the applicant. In fact, only the civil suits in question are sought to be transferred by her. During the course of submissions, counsel for respondent No.

1 has categorically stated about there to be collusion between the applicant, her husband and even her parents-in-law, only to usurp the property of respondent No.1-Desh Raj, who is grandfather-in-law of the applicant. One thing is very certain from the material brought on record that there is voluminous litigation pending between the parties. Perusal of the affidavit of the applicant reveals that she has sought transfer of the cases, mentioned at serial No.1 and 2 i.e. CS/198/2024 and CS/259/2021, by way of filing present applications. It is pertinent to notice that CS/198/2024 is contested by respondent No.1-Desh Raj only. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that civil suit i.e. CS/259/2021, has been filed by respondent No.

Courts at Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. The transfer of the said suit has been sought, by way of filing TA-1301-2025. So far as other litigation, as mentioned in clause 3, 4, 5 and 8 to 10, is concerned, the same relates to the property, which has been transferred at the instance of respondent No.1, as well as, with regard to the loan raised upon the same and the liability created against the bank. The said litigation is also pending in the Courts at Pehowa/Kurukshetra. No justifiable reason could be assigned by the counsel for the applicant, as to why, the other litigation, is not sought to be transferred by the applicant.

Considering the aforesaid fact situation, seemingly, the applicant is only interested for transfer of the civil suits i.e. CS/198/2024 and CS/259/2021. At this stage, on query by this Court, it is disclosed by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant-Satbir Kaur @ Satbeer Kaur, is pursuing the remaining litigation at Pehowa, as well as Kurukshetra. Taking it to be so, one also has to consider that respondent No.1-Desh Raj, is an aged person. He is grandfather-in-law of the applicant and he had transferred the property in the name of his grandson, Gagandeep Singhrespondent No.3, who is husband of the applicant. Said Gagandeep Singh had further transferred the property, in the name of Saroj Bala and Satbir Kaur @ Satbeer Kaur and it is stated that only thereafter, the matrimonial litigation had started between the parties.

Such being the situation, the element of collusion, as asserted by the counsel for respondent No.1, cannot be ruled out, more particularly,

when even after staying separate for a period of 8 years, only the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed, wherein, till date, no maintenance has been paid by the husband. Even, no effective steps have been taken by the applicant, to secure the maintenance. In view of the same, the element of malafide intention to be there, cannot be ruled out. Taking the aforesaid position into consideration and also considering the fact that as many as 7 other cases, wherein the applicantSatbir Kaur @ Satbeer Kaur, is also a party, are already pending in Pehowa, as well as Kurukshetra and while vouchsafing the interest of respondent No.1-Desh Raj, who is an aged person, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to allow the applications. Hence, both the transfer applications are hereby dismissed. (ARCHANA PURI) 01.05.2026 JUDGE Himanshu Vats Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No