RSA-6134-2014 (O&M) [128] Raman Kumar and others Parvesh Mehandi Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] [2] original positions as in the Civil Suit i.e. appellants as plaintiffs and respondents as defendants. [3] are entitled to share in the property in the form of residential house as detailed out in the head-note of the plaint. Further, prayer was for grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining share of the 2014 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-6134 Date of Decision : 07.04.2025 Raman Kumar and others versus Mehandi Ratta and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocatefor Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate forthe appellants. Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the respondents. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs are in regular second appeal. For convenience, parties are original positions as in the Civil Suit i.e. appellants as plaintiffs and respondents as defendants. Plaintiffs filed a suit, seeking declaration to the effect that they are entitled to 2/3 share collectively and share in the property in the form of residential house as detailed out in the note of the plaint. Further, prayer was for grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from alienating or dispossessing of the share of the plaintiffs in the suit property in any manner. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 6134-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.04.2025 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocatefor Advocate are in regular second appeal. are hereinafter referred to by their original positions as in the Civil Suit i.e. appellants as plaintiffs and filed a suit, seeking declaration to the effect that they share collectively and defendant No.1 is entitled to share in the property in the form of residential house as detailed out in the note of the plaint. Further, prayer was for grant of decree of permanent s from alienating or dispossessing of the in the suit property in any manner. 1 by their original positions as in the Civil Suit i.e. appellants as plaintiffs and filed a suit, seeking declaration to the effect that they 1/2 share in the property in the form of residential house as detailed out in the note of the plaint. Further, prayer was for grant of decree of permanent s from alienating or dispossessing of the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6134-2014 (O&M) [4] property in dispute was grandfather of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and husband of plaintiff No.3. He was father of intestate, leaving behind son. His other son leaving behind plaintiff Nos.1 & 2. Plaintiffs alleged that black mail Power of Attorney. The same was cancelled. residence of his younger son Harmesh Kumar, father of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 at Nakodar. Defendants forcibl Kumar died on 03.07.2004. Defendants refused to give share in the property left by Karam Chand suit. [5] possession of the house in question. [6] suffered decree in C Karam Chand question in favour of defendant It was claim Jalandhar in the year 1968 and had been working through Whereas father of plaintiffs remained unemployed during his life. His family was being looked af [7] 2014 (O&M) As per the plaintiffs, Karam Chand property in dispute was grandfather of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and husband of plaintiff No.3. He was father of defendant , leaving behind Ishra Devi-widow, son. His other son namely Harmesh Kumar leaving behind plaintiff Nos.1 & 2. Plaintiffs alleged that black mailed by defendant, who forced him to execute Power of Attorney. The same was cancelled. residence of his younger son Harmesh Kumar, father of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 at Nakodar. Defendants forcibly occupied house of Kumar died on 03.07.2004. Defendants refused to give share in the property Karam Chand to the plaintiffs, forcing the plaintiffs to file the present Suit was contested by the defendant possession of the house in question. Defendants claimed that during his life suffered decree in Civil Suit No.53 of 1994 in favour of Karam Chand also executed Will dated 28.01.1994, bequeathing property in question in favour of defendant No.1. Plot in question was purchased by defendant No.1 in the name of his father and constructed It was claimed that defendant No.1 joined services at Radio Station, Jalandhar in the year 1968 and had been working through Whereas father of plaintiffs remained unemployed during his life. His family was being looked after by Karam Chand On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as , Karam Chand the registered owner of the property in dispute was grandfather of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and husband of defendant No.1. Karam Chand, who died widow, Surinder Kumar Mehandi Ratta namely Harmesh Kumar, pre-deceased Karam Chand leaving behind plaintiff Nos.1 & 2. Plaintiffs alleged that Karam Chand was by defendant, who forced him to execute a Will and a General Power of Attorney. The same was cancelled. Karam Chand died at the residence of his younger son Harmesh Kumar, father of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 occupied house of Karam Chand. Harmesh Kumar died on 03.07.2004. Defendants refused to give share in the property , forcing the plaintiffs to file the present defendants claiming to be owners s claimed that during his life-time, Karam Chand ivil Suit No.53 of 1994 in favour of defendant No.1. also executed Will dated 28.01.1994, bequeathing property in No.1. Plot in question was purchased by No.1 in the name of his father and constructed house on his own. that defendant No.1 joined services at Radio Station, Jalandhar in the year 1968 and had been working throughout his life. Whereas father of plaintiffs remained unemployed during his life. His Karam Chand. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as 2 istered owner of the property in dispute was grandfather of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and husband of died Ratta- Karam Chand, was General died at the residence of his younger son Harmesh Kumar, father of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 . Harmesh Kumar died on 03.07.2004. Defendants refused to give share in the property , forcing the plaintiffs to file the present s in Karam Chand No.1. also executed Will dated 28.01.1994, bequeathing property in No.1. Plot in question was purchased by house on his own. that defendant No.1 joined services at Radio Station, his life. Whereas father of plaintiffs remained unemployed during his life. His - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6134-2014 (O&M) [8] execution of Power of Attorney (Exhibit D Karam Chand Chand vide cancellation deed dated 13.07.1994. However, on 19.03.1994, Karam Chand In the said decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, Surinder Kumar was declared to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. The said plaintiffs themselves as Exhibit P having not been challenged, plaintiffs were not entitled for decree of declaration. [9] Appellate Court. [10] judgment and decree passed by the Courts below submits that once the Power of Attorney (Exhibit D 2014 (O&M) being prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as being prayed 3. Whether Karam Chand executed a valid will in favour of the defendant no.1 dated 29.01.94? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the defendant no.1 is the owner in possession of the house on the basis of judgment and decree dated19.03.1994? OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPM 7. Relief.” Trial Court held that the defendants successfully proved execution of Power of Attorney (Exhibit D Karam Chand. Though, the same was subsequently cancelled by vide cancellation deed dated 13.07.1994. However, on 19.03.1994, Chand suffered decree in favour of Surinder Kumar In the said decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, Surinder Kumar was declared to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. The said plaintiffs themselves as Exhibit P-10/A and Exhibit P having not been challenged, plaintiffs were not entitled for decree of declaration. The aforesaid findings have been affirmed by the learned Low Appellate Court. Counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below submits that once the Power of Attorney (Exhibit D-2) was cancelled by cancellation deed dated being prayed for? OPP. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as being prayed for? OPP Whether Karam Chand executed a valid will in favour of the defendant no.1 dated 29.01.94? OPD Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the Whether the defendant no.1 is the owner in possession of e house on the basis of judgment and decree dated19.03.1994? OPD Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the that the defendants successfully proved execution of Power of Attorney (Exhibit D-2) and Will (Exhibit D-1) by . Though, the same was subsequently cancelled by Karam vide cancellation deed dated 13.07.1994. However, on 19.03.1994, suffered decree in favour of Surinder Kumar-defendant No.1. In the said decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, Surinder Kumar was declared to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. The said documents have been proved by 10/A and Exhibit P-10/B. The said decree having not been challenged, plaintiffs were not entitled for decree of The aforesaid findings have been affirmed by the learned Low Counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below submits that once the 2) was cancelled by cancellation deed dated 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent Whether Karam Chand executed a valid will in favour of Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the Whether the defendant no.1 is the owner in possession of e house on the basis of judgment and decree Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the that the defendants successfully proved 1) by Karam vide cancellation deed dated 13.07.1994. However, on 19.03.1994, No.1. In the said decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, Surinder Kumar was declared to be exclusive owner in proved by 10/B. The said decree having not been challenged, plaintiffs were not entitled for decree of The aforesaid findings have been affirmed by the learned Lower Counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below submits that once the 2) was cancelled by cancellation deed dated RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6134-2014 (O&M) 13.07.1994, the decree suffere of Attorney cannot survive. He thus, submits that the Courts below erred in non-suiting the plaintiffs merely on the basis of basis of Power of Attorney, which was subsequently cancelled submits that decree having not been registered does not vest any title in defendant filed by the plaintiffs. [11] decree dated 19.03.1994 has remained unchallenged and thus, has attained finality. He relie reported as of the plaintiffs was admitted by the Court on the basis of admission, decree does not require to be registered. [12] through records of the case. [13] in dispute that the property was owned by his two sons namely Harmesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar are fighting for residential house owned by him. his life-time, he executed registered Will and Power of Attorney in favour of Surinder Kumar. The said documents have been proved on record as Exhibit D documents is suffered consent decree in favour of Surinder Kumar in Civil Suit No.53 of 1994. The said decree is also not in dispute and has been proved on record by plaintiffs themselves as Exhibit P 2014 (O&M) 13.07.1994, the decree suffered by Karam Chand of Attorney cannot survive. He thus, submits that the Courts below erred in suiting the plaintiffs merely on the basis of basis of Power of Attorney, which was subsequently cancelled submits that decree having not been registered does not vest any title in defendant No.1 and thus, Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Per contra, counsel for the defendant ecree dated 19.03.1994 has remained unchallenged and thus, has attained finality. He relies upon ‘Bachan Singh versus Kartar Singh and others’ reported as 2002 (1) PLJ 60, wherein it has been held that where the claim of the plaintiffs was admitted by the defendants and suit was decreed by Court on the basis of admission, decree does not require to be registered. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the property was owned by his two sons namely Harmesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar are fighting for residential house owned by him. Karam Chand time, he executed registered Will and Power of Attorney in favour of Surinder Kumar. The said documents have been proved on record as Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2 dated 28.01.1994. documents is not in dispute. Thereafter, on 19.03.1994, suffered consent decree in favour of Surinder Kumar in Civil Suit No.53 of . The said decree is also not in dispute and has been proved on record by plaintiffs themselves as Exhibit P-10/A. Vide Karam Chand on the basis of said Power of Attorney cannot survive. He thus, submits that the Courts below erred in suiting the plaintiffs merely on the basis of a decree suffered on the basis of Power of Attorney, which was subsequently cancelled. He further submits that decree having not been registered does not vest any title in No.1 and thus, Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit defendants-respondents submits that ecree dated 19.03.1994 has remained unchallenged and thus, has attained Bachan Singh versus Kartar Singh and others’ wherein it has been held that where the claim defendants and suit was decreed by Court on the basis of admission, decree does not require to be registered. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the property was owned by Karam Chand. The branches of his two sons namely Harmesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar are fighting for Karam Chand died on 02.05.1995. During time, he executed registered Will and Power of Attorney in favour of Surinder Kumar. The said documents have been proved on record as 2 dated 28.01.1994. Execution of these not in dispute. Thereafter, on 19.03.1994, Karam Chand suffered consent decree in favour of Surinder Kumar in Civil Suit No.53 of . The said decree is also not in dispute and has been proved on record 10/A. Vide said decree, Surinder 4 on the basis of said Power of Attorney cannot survive. He thus, submits that the Courts below erred in decree suffered on the . He further submits that decree having not been registered does not vest any title in No.1 and thus, Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit respondents submits that ecree dated 19.03.1994 has remained unchallenged and thus, has attained Bachan Singh versus Kartar Singh and others’ wherein it has been held that where the claim defendants and suit was decreed by I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not . The branches of his two sons namely Harmesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar are fighting for ied on 02.05.1995. During time, he executed registered Will and Power of Attorney in favour of Surinder Kumar. The said documents have been proved on record as Execution of these Karam Chand suffered consent decree in favour of Surinder Kumar in Civil Suit No.53 of . The said decree is also not in dispute and has been proved on record said decree, Surinder RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6134-2014 (O&M) Kumar was admitted to be owner in Karam Chand Parvesh-his year thereafter, he aggrieved person i.e. father of the plaintiffs Chand, Harmesh Kumar never preferred any challenge to the said decree till 03.07.2004 when he died. The instant suit was institut 18.07.2005. No challenge has been laid to the decree in favour of Surinder Kumar, till date. In the absence of Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well reason recorded by the Courts below, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. [14] ordered to be [15] off. 07.04.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 2014 (O&M) Kumar was admitted to be owner in possession Karam Chand. In the said suit, Karam Chand his Attorney holder. Though, Karam Chand year thereafter, he never challenged the said consent decree. Even the aggrieved person i.e. father of the plaintiffs , Harmesh Kumar never preferred any challenge to the said decree till 03.07.2004 when he died. The instant suit was institut 18.07.2005. No challenge has been laid to the decree in favour of Surinder Kumar, till date. In the absence of the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well reason ed by the Courts below, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. In view of the above, the present regular second appeal is ordered to be dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand 07.04.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable possession of the suit property by Karam Chand was being represented by Smt. Karam Chand lived for more than never challenged the said consent decree. Even the aggrieved person i.e. father of the plaintiffs, the excluded son of Karam , Harmesh Kumar never preferred any challenge to the said decree till 03.07.2004 when he died. The instant suit was instituted year thereafter on 18.07.2005. No challenge has been laid to the decree in favour of Surinder the challenge to the said decree, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned findings ed by the Courts below, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. In view of the above, the present regular second appeal is All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 of the suit property by being represented by Smt. lived for more than never challenged the said consent decree. Even the Karam , Harmesh Kumar never preferred any challenge to the said decree till ed year thereafter on 18.07.2005. No challenge has been laid to the decree in favour of Surinder challenge to the said decree, this findings In view of the above, the present regular second appeal is disposed RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document