RSA-2641-2013 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 RSA-2641-2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.01.2026 Nanki @ Vidya Devi ...Appellant(s) Vs. Juglal and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Rupinder K. Thind, Ms. Tudhjot K. Sidhu and Ms. Tejasvi Luthra, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Singla, Mr. Aakash Singla, Mr. Ankush Singla and Ms. Zoha Ayaz, Advocates for the respondents. ****** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Plain/0 is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit 6led by the appellant for possession of suit land; and declara/on that impugned muta/ons are null and void; and for permanent injunc/on, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. It was the pleaded case of the appellant that she is the daughter of Raja Ram son of Jodha Ram. Her father had died on 30.10.1947 leaving behind his widow Anchai and the plain/0. A<er the death of Raja Ram, plain/0 and her mother were at the mercy of Nathu Ram/elder brother of Raja Ram. Nathu Ram was father of defendant No.1 and grandfather of defendants No.2 to 5. Nathu Ram had started cul/va/ng the suit land which was looked a<er by the plain/0 and her DIVYANSHI 2026.01.29 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2641-2013 (O&M) - 2 - mother only to grab the suit property. Upon death of Raja Ram, muta/on No. 162 of inheritance of Raja Ram was got sanc/oned only in favour of Anchai widow of Raja Ram. Anchai had performed karewa marriage with one Sada Sukh. Therea<er, vide muta/on No. 176 dated 22.05.1954, 1/14th share of land measuring 355 bigha and 9 biswas was mutated in favour of Nathu Ram. It was alleged that Nathu Ram had also su0ered a collusive decree dated 14.01.1970 passed in Civil Suit No. 1979 of 1969 /tled as “Maghi and others vs. Nathi” in favour of Maghi wife of Nathu Ram as well as defendant No.1 regarding land measuring 333K 16M. On the basis of the said collusive decree, muta/on No. 490 was sanc/oned. It was alleged that similarly on the basis of other collusive decrees, muta/ons were sanc/oned in favour of the defendants. Thus, Nathu Ram and defendants had grabbed the land owned and possessed by Raja Ram by concealing birth and the existence of the plain/0 before the revenue authori/es by misusing their posi/on as guardian. It was further alleged in the plaint that defendants had nothing to do with the suit land. Plain/0 had approached defendants many /mes and requested them to get the suit land transferred in her favour but to no avail. Hence, present suit was 6led on 24.08.2002. 3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the par/es, the learned Addi/onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa had dismissed the suit of the plain/0 vide judgment and decree dated 03.04.2010. The Civil Appeal 6led by the plain/0 was dismissed by the DIVYANSHI 2026.01.29 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2641-2013 (O&M) - 3 - learned Addi/onal District Judge, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.2013. Hence, the present second appeals by the plain/0. 4. It is inter alia submiFed by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Courts below were in patent error in non-sui/ng the appellant as they failed to appreciate that DW1 Chando examined by the defendants themselves, had admiFed in her cross-examina/on that there was a case between the appellant and her ‘brothers’ i.e. defendants. Even DW2 Ra/ Ram has stated in his cross-examina/on that appellant namely Nanki @ Vidya Devi is the daughter of Raja Ram. Furthermore, appellant had also produced her birth cer/6cate Ex.P1, wherein her name is men/oned as Nanki. It is submiFed that even in her birth cer/6cate dated 24.04.1944 Ex.P1, name of father of the appellant is men/oned as Raja Ram. Appellant had also duly stepped into witness box to prove here own case. PW3 Ram Kishan, who is the common rela/ve of the par/es, has also admiFed that plain/0 is the daughter of Raja Ram. Even PW2 Sada Sukh has stated that plain/0 is not his daughter but daughter of Raja Ram. Learned counsel contends that in the face of the above overwhelming oral and documentary evidence especially the admission of defendants’ witnesses, it was proved beyond doubt that plain/0 is the daughter of Raja Ram and Anchai. As such, judgments of both the Courts below are perverse, against pleadings and against the evidence on record. 5. It is further submiFed that the respondents have nowhere taken a plea in the wriFen statement that suit property is joint Hindu DIVYANSHI 2026.01.29 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2641-2013 (O&M) - 4 - family property. For this reason, as well, plain/0 could not have been non- suited. 6. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants vehemently opposes submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that there are clear, categorical, and concurrent 6ndings on record by both the Courts below to the e0ect that plain/0 is not the daughter of Raja Ram. Learned counsel for the respondents takes this Court through the judgments of the learned Courts below in detail to buFress his submissions. He accordingly prays that the present Appeal be dismissed being meritless. 8. No other argument is raised on behalf of the par/es. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case 6le in great detail. I 6nd merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents/defendants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon her birth cer/6cate dated 24.04.1944 Ex.P1 to submit that in the said cer/6cate, a appellant is men/oned as Nanki and name of father of the appellant is men/oned as Rajaram; and therefore, she is daughter of Rajaram. However, a perusal of the said Birth cer/6cate shows that one Nanki was born on 24.04.1944 to one Raja Ram who was resident of village Chhateria. Whereas, Raja Ram, husband of Anchai and alleged father of the appellant was not a resident of village Chhateria and was a resident of DIVYANSHI 2026.01.29 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2641-2013 (O&M) - 5 - village Dhukra. Furthermore, plain/0 has been unable to deny that deceased Raja Ram was resident of village Dhukra; whereas birth cer/6cate Ex.P1 shows Raja Ram was resident of Chhateria. 10. Moreover, name of the plain/0 is not Nanki, and is Vidya Devi. It is only at the /me of 6ling of suit on 24.08.2002, that the plain/0/appellant has adopted the name Nanki. Prior thereto, there is nothing whatsoever on the record to indicate or prove the iden/ty of the appellant as Nanki. It is the conten/on of the appellant that a<er her marriage, her in-laws had changed her name to Vidya Devi. However, from the date of birth i.e. 24.04.1944 /ll her marriage in 1964 i.e. 20 years, there is no document on record that appellant had changed her name from Nanki to Vidya Devi. Even a<er her marriage, appellant has not produced any document any proof that she ever carried the name Nanki. Plea of the plain/0 that previous name of the plain/0 was Nanki and a<er her marriage, her in laws changed her name as Vidya Devi, is rejected as plain/0 had failed to prove or place on record any document to show that a<er her marriage, her name was changed from Nanki to Vidya Devi. Appellant had added the name of Nanki only in Civil Suit. There is no document on record to show that Nanki @ Vidya Devi are one and the same person because birth cer/6cate only shows name as Nanki and not Vidya Devi. Thus, there is clear discrepancy in the name of the plain/0; as also in respect of the residence of Raja Ram. DIVYANSHI 2026.01.29 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2641-2013 (O&M) - 6 - 11. Furthermore, from a perusal of the facts on record, it is clear that Raja Ram had actually died issues less; and plain/0 is the daughter of Anchai and Sada Sukh. This fact has been admiFed by Anchai, mother of the plain/0 who has made a statement before the revenue authori/es at the /me of sanc/oning of muta/on Ex.P18/Ex.D2 and Ex.P19/Ex.D3 that Raja Ram was issueless. It was on the basis of statement of Anchai that 6rst the muta/on was sanc/oned in favour of Anchai; and a<er her karewa marriage with Sada Sukh, muta/on was sanc/oned in the name of Nathu Ram/father of defendant No.1. The said statement of Anchai before the revenue authori/es was duly veri6ed by Nikku Lamberdar. Even in the pedigree table on the muta/on Ex.P19/Ex.D3 Raja Ram has been shown to be issueless. No evidence was led by the plain/0 to show that pedigree table contained in Ex.P19 is wrong. 12. Furthermore, PW3 Ram Kishan resident of village Chhateria where the plain/0 is alleged to be born, has not deposed that Nanki and Vidya Devi are one and the same person or Raja Ram had ever resided in village Chhateria. Merely the self-serving oral statement made by Sada Sukh PW2, PW3 Ram Kishan, who is nephew and PW4 Maru Ram, husband of the plain/0, that the plain/0 is the daughter of Raja Ram, cannot be believed in the absence of any documentary evidence. 13. Further, even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that plain/0 is daughter of deceased Raja Ram, then as per Sec/on 3 of the Hindu Women Rights to Property Act, she is not en/tled to any share in DIVYANSHI 2026.01.29 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2641-2013 (O&M) - 7 - the property of her father, the same being joint Hindu family property. Sec/on 3 of the said Act s/pulates that daughter has no right in the joint Hindu family property; and only widow and son are en/tled to succeed to share le< by a person in joint Hindu family property. For this reason, as well, the muta/ons of inheritance and the judgments and decrees on the basis of which said muta/ons are based, are legal and valid. 14. Last but not the least, suit of the appellant was barred by limita/on. Plea of the plain/0 that she came to know about sanc/oning of the muta/on only in the year 2002 is untenable. Furthermore, perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below show that the en/re evidence has been discussed in minute detail by both the Courts below before returning concurrent 6ndings of fact that : (a) plain/0 Vidya Devi was not proved to be daughter of Raja Ram; (b) that Raja Ram was resident of village Dhukra; whereas as per birth cer/6cate Ex.P1, Nanki was born to Raja Ram, resident of village Chhateria; (c) plain/0 has failed to prove that Nanki and Vidya Devi are one and the same person; (d) Birth cer/6cate Ex.P1 could not be connected with the plain/0; and (e) Plain/0 failed to demonstrate that she was en/tled to inherit property of her father Raja Ram whether ancestral or separate property prior to the year 1956. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert or dispute the above said facts and 6ndings. 16. Even otherwise, present Second appeal is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that this Court in Regular Second Appeal DIVYANSHI 2026.01.29 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2641-2013 (O&M) - 8 - has limited jurisdic/on to interfere in the concurrent 6ndings of facts returned by the learned Courts below. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (Deceased) (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 2034559 has held that no maFer howsoever incorrect or grossly erroneous the concurrent 6ndings of the learned courts below may be, this Court in the Second Appeal can interfere in the concurrent 6ndings only where there is an error in law or procedure. In the present case, no such error in law and procedure has been made out by learned counsel for the appellant. 17. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. The present Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. 18. Pending applica/ons, if any, stand disposed of. 27.01.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.01.29 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document