RSA No. 813 of 2000 IN THE HIG Ramesh Kumar Narender Parsad CORAM: HON’BL Argued by:- Mr. For t Mr. Ms. For t DEEPAK GUPTA, The presen through her leg passed by the le filed by defenda 02.02.1994 passe were set aside. 2. For t are being referre cord, as available perused. 3. The The property in Chhoti Bai, from Smt. Shanti Devi, March 1984), Ra 000 Page N: 1 of 5 Pages HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR RSA No. 813 of 2000(O ar Sharma Versus rsad Jain Reserved on: 20.01.202 Pronounced on: 23.01. N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate For the appellant. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate For the respondent. TA, J. esent second appeal has been prefe legal representative, assailing th e learned Additional District Judge endant No.1 was allowed and th assed by the learned trial Court, de For the sake of convenience and to erred to as per their status before lable on the Digital Management Sy The facts giving rise to the present in dispute was owned by one Rat rom whose wedlock no issue was evi, about fifty two years prior to t , Rattan Lal Jain, with the consent ages HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (O&M) …Appellan …Respondent .2026 .01.2026 PTA te ith referred by the plaintiff of the case g the judgment dated 29.05.1999 udge, Panipat, whereby the appea the judgment and decree dated decreeing the suit for declaration d to avoid any confusion, the partie re the trial Court. The trial Court r nt System (DMS), has been carefull ent litigation are largely undisputed Rattan Lal Jain. He was married to was born. According to the plaintif to the institution of the suit (filed in ent of his first wife Chhoti Bai, pe llant dent. case, 1999 peal ated tion, rties rt re- efully uted. ed to intiff ed in per- JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.23 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 813 of 2000 formed marriage child was born o Rattan Lal Jain th 4. The Lal Jain, in a fam of his two wives, each and made a Jain, both wome death of Chhoti B session of the ho 5. It w source of income rent therefrom, w sion. The defend interfering in her compelled the pl tection of her po 6. Defe Sheetalwati, filed and asserted tha While admitting no issue was bor 02.03.1961 allege other Will dated fendants. It was came the absolu fendants. On this 7. Nece evidence in supp dants failed to le 000 Page N: 2 of 5 Pages iage with her at Karnal as per Hindu rn out of this wedlock, who unfort in thereafter died issueless. The case of the plaintiff further was family settlement, agreed to transf ives, namely Chhoti Bai and the pla de an oral declaration to that effec omen came into possession as co oti Bai, the plaintiff claimed to have e house by survivorship. It was further pleaded that the p ome, let out a portion of the hous m, while the remaining portion con endants, who are the real sisters of her possession and forcibly collect e plaintiff to file the suit seeking de r possession. Defendant No.2 did not contest t filed a written statement denying t that Shanti Devi was merely engag ing the marriage of Rattan Lal Jain w born from that wedlock, defendan llegedly executed by Rattan Lal Jain ted 10.07.1970 allegedly executed b was claimed that after the death o solute owner and thereafter, bequ this basis, dismissal of the suit was Necessary issues were framed by t support of her claim. Despite repe o lead any evidence, and their evide ages indu rites and ceremonies. One mal fortunately predeceased his father was that during his lifetime, Rattan ansfer the disputed house in favou plaintiff, to the extent of half shar effect. After the death of Rattan La s co-owners. Subsequently, on the have become the sole owner in po e plaintiff, having no independen house to tenants and was receivin continued to remain in her posse s of Rattan Lal Jain, allegedly started llecting rent from the tenants, which g declaration of ownership and pr st the suit. Defendant No.1, Smt ing the marital status of the plaintif ngaged as a cook by Rattan Lal Jain ain with Chhoti Bai and the fact tha dant No.1 propounded a Will dated Jain in favour of Chhoti Bai, and a ted by Chhoti Bai in favour of the d th of Rattan Lal Jain, Chhoti Bai b equeathed the property to the d was prayed. by the trial Court. The plaintiff led repeated opportunities, the defe vidence was closed. male ther. attan vour share n Lal the pos- dent iving sses- arted hich pro- Smt. intiff Jain. that ated d an- e de- i be- e de- ff led efen- JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.23 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 813 of 2000 8. Upo turned a clear fin succeeded to the plaintiff, namely authored by Rat wife. The Wills p evidence. Conseq 9. Duri was substituted will dated 13.06. son Narinder Par 10. The learned First App was the widow o suit on the reaso was an offence u riage could not c lied upon by the inherit as he was the defendants, maintainable. 11. Aggr tative has approa Court upheld the was entitled to in Appellate Court c relating to bigam Wills set up by th in favour of Barh 000 Page N: 3 of 5 Pages Upon appreciation of the materia r finding that the plaintiff was the w the suit property as its owner. T ely writings dated 01.05.1941 (PW Rattan Lal Jain himself, acknowled ills propounded by the defendants nsequently, the suit was decreed vid During pendency of the suit, the p ted by Barham Sarup as her legal r .06.1989. Defendant No.1 also exp Parshad Jain. The appeal filed by defendant No Appellate Court. While concurring w of Rattan Lal Jain, the Appellate C easoning that even prior to the Hi ce under the Indian Penal Code ot confer inheritance rights. It furth the plaintiff did not confer ownersh was merely a cousin of Shanti Devi; nts, and that the suit for declarat Aggrieved by the reversal, the plain proached this Court. It has been con the finding that Shanti Devi was th to inherit the property as his only urt committed a serious error in im igamy into civil succession. It is furt by the defendants were proved, and Barham Sarup was accepted during ages erial on record, the trial Court r he widow of Rattan Lal Jain and had r. The documents produced by the (PW-6/1) and 09.07.1944 (PW-6/2) wledged the plaintiff as his second nts were not proved due to lack o d vide judgment dated 02.02.1994. he plaintiff Shanti Devi expired and gal representative on the basis of expired and was substituted by he t No.1 was partly allowed by th ing with the finding that Shanti Dev ate Court nevertheless dismissed th e Hindu Marriage Act 1955, bigam 1860 and therefore, such a ma further held that the documents r ership; that Barham Sarup could no evi; that rent was being collected b laration without injunction was no plaintiff through her legal represe n contended that once the Appellate as the widow of Rattan Lal Jain, she nly Class I heir. It is argued that the n importing concepts of criminal law further submitted that none of the , and that the Will dated 13.06.1989 ring substitution without objection t re- had y the 6/2), cond ck of 94. and of a y her the Devi d the gamy mar- ts re- d not ed by s not esen- llate , she t the l law f the 1989 tion. JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.23 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 813 of 2000 The contradictor of Anand Sarup 12. Lear not dispute the c Jain and was ent Braham Sarup. 13. This ined the record. 14. The based on docum stands affirmed b 15. Once clusion drawn by property on acco der the Indian P the enactment o not void. Success provisions. The r a clear misapplica 16. Adm Devi, being his w Succession Act. T from inheritance erty after the dea 17. The in accordance wi led. The trial Cou this finding. In a cession. 000 Page N: 4 of 5 Pages ctory findings recorded by the Appe up @ Arhant Kumar were also highl Learned Senior Advocate appearing he concurrent finding that Shanti D entitled to inherit the property, bu This Court has considered the rival rd. The finding that Shanti Devi was t cumentary evidence emanating fr ed by both the Courts below. This fi Once Shanti Devi is held to be the w n by the First Appellate Court that s account of alleged bigamy is legally n Penal Code has no bearing on ci nt of the Hindu Marriage Act, secon cession to property is governed by he reasoning adopted by the Appel plication of law. Admittedly, Rattan Lal Jain died is is widow, became his sole Class I h ct. The sisters of the deceased fal nce. The defendants, therefore, ac death of Rattan Lal Jain. The alleged Wills propounded by th e with law. No attesting witness was Court rightly discarded them, and t In absence of a valid Will, the prop ages ppellate Court regarding ownership ighlighted. aring for the respondents fairly did ti Devi was the widow of Rattan La y, but questioned the entitlement o ival submissions and carefully exam as the widow of Rattan Lal Jain i g from Rattan Lal Jain himself and his finding has attained finality. he widow of Rattan Lal Jain, the co at she was disentitled to inherit the gally untenable. Criminal liability u n civil rights of succession. Prior to cond marriage amongst Hindus wa d by personal law, and not by pena ppellate Court in this regard reflect d issueless. Upon his death, Shant s I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu fall in Class II and stand excluded , acquired no right in the suit pro y the defendants were never proved was examined and no evidence wa nd the Appellate Court did not upse property devolved by intestate su rship y did n Lal nt of m- in is and con- it the y un- or to s was enal flects hanti indu uded prop- oved was pset suc- JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.23 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 813 of 2000 18. The conceived. He w the basis of a W objection. In any time, and success 19. The tainable for wan and possession a circumstances wa 20. The consistencies and defendants whil tained. 21. For the judgment da Panipat, is legally 22. Cons and decree date 02.02.1994 passe her legal represe suit property. Par 23.01.2026 Jiten Whe Whe Uplo 000 Page N: 5 of 5 Pages The objection raised to the locus o e was brought on record as legal r Will dated 13.06.1989, and such s any case, the title of Shanti Devi ccession to her estate does not affec The reasoning of the Appellate Co want of injunction is also unsustain ion and complained of interference s was clearly maintainable. The judgment of the First Appellate and perversity, as it upheld findin while still granting them relief. Su For the foregoing reasons, this Cou t dated 29.05.1999 passed by the le gally unsustainable and warrants int Consequently, the present second a dated 29.05.1999 are set aside and assed by the learned trial Court ar resentative, shall be deemed to be . Parties shall bear their own costs.O hether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No hether reportable : Yes/No Uploaded on : January 23 , 2026 ages us of Barham Sarup is equally mi gal representative of Shanti Devi on ch substitution was allowed withou evi stood perfected during her lif affect the correctness of the decree. Court that the suit was not mai stainable. The plaintiff asserted title ence. A suit for declaration in such llate Court suffers from internal i ndings on several issues against th f. Such a judgment cannot be su Court is of the considered view tha he learned Additional District Judge s interference. nd appeal is allowed. The judgmen and the judgment & decree dated t are restored.The plaintiff, through o be the owner in possession of th sts.Ordered accordingly. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE mis- vi on thout life- ree. ain- title such al in- t the sus- that dge, ment ated ough f the JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.23 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document