IN THE HI 215 Baldev Singh Jagdeep Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, the effect tha also legally en deceased as n measuring 237 and that the deceased Suk therefore cann class-I of Sch inheritance be decree dated Appeal filed 17.04.2022 w E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA gh Vs. ingh & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Charan Jit Sharma, Adv for the appellant. *** PTA, J. The appellant-plaintiff had that the plaintiff is owner with po ly entitled to inherit 1/3rd share of as natural heir successor and for jo 237 kanal 17 marlas as described in the 3 respondents/defendants Sukhdev Singh are all NRIs and cannot inherit as natural heirs succ Schedule of Hindu Succession Ac e be set aside being null and vo ted 28.03.2018 suit of the appellan led thereto by the appellant be 2 was also dismissed vide jud D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3424-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA Advocate had filed a suit for declaration to possession of 1/3rd share; and e of his brother Sukhdev Singh or joint possession of total land ed in the headnote of the plaint; No.1 to 3/children of the and not citizens of India and successors of his property under n Act, 1956; and mutations of d void etc. Vide judgment and ellant was dismissed with costs. being Civil Appeal No.22 of judgment and decree dated 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 04.10.2018 b present secon 2. impress upon had migrated such, as per voluntarily acq the citizen of I ceased to be Notification Foreign Excha Property in In person of Indi property, other in India or from of Indian origi land/suit land Singh or his matter has n passing the im 3. 4. perused the ca 8 by the learned Additional Dist cond appeal. Learned counsel for the ap pon this Court that the defendants ted to England and had also acquir er Article 9 of the Constitution of acquires citizenship of another St of India. As such the defendants an be citizens of India. Therefore, n No. FEMA.21/2000-RBI dated 0 xchange Management (Acquisition in India) Regulations 2000/ Ex. P Indian origin resident outside Ind other than agricultural land by way o from person outside India, who is ci origin resident outside India.”It is c land could not have been inherite his children/ defendants No.1 to s not been considered by the le e impugned judgment. No other argument is raise I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. District Judge, Faridkot. Hence e appellant vehemently seeks to ants No.1 to 3 and their father quired citizenship of England. As n of India, whereby if a person r State/country he ceases to be ts and their father Sukhdev Singh re, as per Section 4(b) of the d 03.05.2000 issued under the tion and Transfer of Immovable . P-6, it was stipulated that “A India may acquire immovable ay of gift from a person residing is citizen of India or from person is contended that as such, the rited by the deceased-Sukhdev to 3. However, this aspect of e learned Courts below while aised on behalf of the appellant. counsel for the appellant and 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5. Singh, Baldev Santokh Singh Santokh Singh also owner wi land i.e. 237 Singh and Gur year 1965 and Citizenship th Citizen of Eng defendants No to be not havi in a Hospital in after the de sanctioned the children/ defe forged Will vid no. 1 to 3 sold no. 4 and 5 11.6.2010. Th defendants no sale deeds be Brief facts of the case are t ldev Singh/appellant/plaintiff, are ingh. They had no sister. Previou ingh was the owner to the extent o r with possession to the extent of 37 kanals 17 marlas as elucidated Gurdeep Singh migrated to Englan and since then, they lived there a p thereof. Sukhdev Singh was per England, as such, he ceased to b No.1 to 3/children of the said Suk having good relations with their fat tal in England on 05.05.2008. It is th death of Sukhdev Singh, the c d the inheritance of the share of Su defendants no. 1 to 3/respondents ll vide mutation nos. 4806, 2128, an sold the share of Sukhdev Singh in d 5/respondents no.4 and 5 vide . The defendants no. 4 and 5 furth s no.6 and 7/respondents no.6 and being Sale Deed No.326 dated are that Sukhdev Singh, Gurdeep are real brothers and sons of eviously, Sukhdev Singh son of nt of 1/3rd share and plaintiff is t of 1/3rd share in joint total suit ated in the head note. Sukhdev gland with their families in the re and voluntarily acquired the permanent resident as well as to be the Citizen of India. The Sukhdev Singh were also stated r father Sukhdev Singh who died is the case of the appellant that e concerned Revenue Officer f Sukhdev Singh in favour of his ents no.1 to 3, on the basis of and 3322.The said defendants h in the suit land to defendants vide Sale Deed no. 572 dated urther sold the said suit land to and 7 by way of three registered ted 07.05.2014 and Sale Deed 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Nos.1658 & 1 mutations wer 6. had legal claim was not entitle and permane appellant has 6. It is the con been noticed the impugned shows the sa incorrect. Mor relevant notifi “A person of immovable pro outside of Indi provisions of th by him or the p India.” The judgment dat Faridkot are re & 1659 dated 11.08.2014 respectiv were sanctioned. It is further the case of the claim to the share of deceased-Sukh ntitled to inherit the property as he anent residency of England. In has relied upon Article 9 as also the contention of the appellant that t ced and/or considered by the learn ned judgments. However, a perusal e said contention of the appellan Moreover, in submitting as above, otification piecemeal and is ignorin n of Indian origin resident outsid e property in India by way of inherit India, who had acquired such prop of the Foreign Exchange Law in for the provisions of these Regulations observations as recorded in pa dated 28.03.2018 passed by learn relevant and read as under:- “10. It is admitted fact that, def heirs of deceased Sukhdev Singh deceased Sukhdev Singh respectiv ectively in respect of which also the appellant that the appellant Sukhdev Singh as Sukhdev Singh s he had acquired the citizenship In contending as above the the aforesaid notification/ Ex. P- at the legal submission has not learned Courts below in passing usal of the impugned judgments ellant is shown to be patently ve, the appellant is reading the noring section 4(c) as per which utside India may acquire any heritance from a person resident property in accordance with the n force at the time of acquisition ions or from a person resident in n paras 10, 11 and 12 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) , defendants no.1 to 3 are legal ingh being sons and daughter of ectively. It is further admitted by 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fo the plaintiff that Sukhdev Singh 23.06.1999 in favour of defenda property situated in India. defendants failed to appear befo execution of the will in question, that defendants no.1 to 3 were ch Singh and therefore, they being Sukhdev Singh were otherwise al of deceased Sukhdev Singh. There that deceased Sukhdev Singh was heirs i.e. defendants no.1 to 3 livi therefore, plaintiff being real br Singh was not entitled to inheri Sukhdev Singh as he is not class o cannot claim ownership over Sukhdev Singh. 11. It is further argued by the Ld. as per the notification no. S.0. published in the Gazette of India 1955, the Central Government ha parity with Indians with respect them except in matters relating t or plantation properties". Plain notification no.FEMA 21/2000-RB Foreign Exchange Management immovable property in India), Re for the plaintiff has exhibited the Ex. P6 and he referred to secti notification, which says that, " resident outside India may acquir than agricultural land by way of g ingh also executed a will dated endants no.1 to 3 regarding the ia. Although, despite notice before the Court to prove the tion, however, it is admitted fact re children of deceased Sukhdev being class-I heirs of deceased se also entitled to the properties Therefore, when it is established was also having three class one 3 living at the time of his death, al brother of deceased Sukhdev nherit the property of deceased lass one heir. Therefore, plaintiff ver the property of deceased Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that S.0.542 (E), dated 11.04.2005 India regarding Citizenship Act, t has held that, "NRI's shall have pect to all facilities available to ing to acquisition of agricultural Plaintiff has also relied upon RBI dated 03.05.2000 made in ent (Acquisition and Transfer of ), Regulations, 2000. Ld. Counsel d the above said notification as ection 4(b) of the above said at, "A person of Indian origin cquire immovable property other of gift from a person residing in 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fro 7. ownership an however, as p the defendant made party t India or from person outside Indi from person of Indian origin reside 12. However, this Court would like above said section 4 of the not person of Indian origin resident o any immovable property in India b person resident outside of India property in accordance with Exchange Law inference at the ti the provisions of its regulations o India. Therefore, the provisions o makes it clear that, a person of In India may acquire any immovable inheritance including agricultural outside India. Therefore, defenda of Indian origin were having immovable property including a inheritance from their father i.e who was person resident outside does not agree with the conten plaintiff as defendants no.1 to 3 d by way of purchase, rather they their deceased father Sukhdev having a pre-existing right being Sukhdev Singh.” It is also to be noted tha and possession of 1/3rd share as per Jamabandi (Ex.P1) it was sh dants there were other co-sharers to rty to the suit and who were t India, who is citizen of India or esident outside India. ld like to go through clause (c) of notification which says that a ent outside of India may acquire dia by way of inheritance from a India, who had acquired such ith the provisions of Foreign he time of acquisition by him or ons or there a person resident in ons on which plaintiff is relying of Indian Origin resident outside vable property in India by way of tural land from a person resident endants no.1 to 3 being persons ing all the rights to acquire ng agricultural land by way of r i.e. deceased Sukhdev Singh, tside India: Therefore, this Court ntention of Ld. Counsel for the o 3 did not acquire any property they inherited the property from dev Singh, in which they were eing class one heirs of deceased that the appellant was seeking re of deceased-Sukhdev Singh s shown on record that besides rs to the suit land who were not re therefore necessary parties. 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document However, they returned by le are as under: fa they were not impleaded as party t y learned Lower Appellate Court in er:- “14. Admittedly, there is no disp governed by Hindu law. They a present case, property is situated law is applicable. Admittedly, def heirs of deceased Sukhdev Singh deceased Sukhdev Singh respectiv class-I heirs of deceased Sukhdev entitled to the properties of dece 2 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1 Resident of India (NI) to acquire a by way of inheritance from a pers Hence, the learned Lower court h plaintiff being real brother of dec entitled to inherit the property of he is not class one heir. 15. Although, plaintiff has taken 23.06.1999 executed by Sukhdev Singh, Daljit Kaur and Raminder K failed to prove the same by lea evidence. Here in the present case 3 did not acquire any property b they inherited the property fr Sukhdev Singh, in which they wer being class one heirs of deceas notification No.FEMA 21/2000-RB it is mentioned at Clause 4 A property in India by a person of In rty to the suit. Relevant findings rt in judgment dated 04.10.2018 dispute regarding parties being ey are Sikh by religion. In the ated in India and as such, Indian , defendants no.1 to 3 are legal ingh being sons and daughter of ectively and as such, they being hdev Singh were otherwise also deceased Sukhdev Singh. Section ct, 1956, does not bar any Non- ire any property situated in India person resident outside of India. urt has rightly observed that the f deceased Sukhdev Singh is not ty of deceased Sukhdev Singh as taken the plea that Will dated hdev Singh in-favour of Jagdeep der Kaur, is false and forged, but y leading cogent and clinching t case matter defendants no.1 to rty by way of purchase, rather y from their deceased father were having a pre-existing right ceased Sukhdev Singh. As per RB dated 3r May 2000 (Ex.P6), 4 Acquisition and Transfer of of Indian origin A person of India 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fo 8. dismissed. 9. 10.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo original resident outside India m any immovable property in India b person resident outside of India property in accordance with the Exchange Law in force at the time provisions of these Regulations o India. 16. As regard the plea taken by declaration regarding ownership a careful perusal of the record on fil for the year 2014- 2015 Ex.P defendants, there are so many o land, who were necessary party in declaration regarding ownership plaintiff has failed to implead th suit for the reasons best known plaintiff cannot claim declaration, In view of the above discu Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No ia may: (a)..... (b)... (c) acquire dia by way of inheritance from a India, who had acquired such h the provisions of the Foreign time of acquisition by him or the ns or from a person resident in by the plaintiff for the relief of ship and possession of 1/3 share, on file in the shape of jamabandi Ex.P1, show that except the any other co-sharers in the suit rty in the present suit for seeking rship by the plaintiff, but the d them as party in the present nown to him and as such, the tion, as prayed for.” iscussion, the present appeal is if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 8 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document