Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 93282 (PNJ)

DEVI RAM v. DHARAMBIR AND ORS.

RSA/6124/2018 · 2025-09-17

Nidhi Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

RSA-6124- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 Devi Ram Dharambir and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration and permanent injunction his co-plaintiff 2. was listed for hearing, following order was passed by this Court: -2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision: 1 Versus Dharambir and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the appellant. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The appellant/plaintiff No. 1 is in second appeal against concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the declaration and permanent injunction plaintiffs/respondents No. 4 and 5 herein On the last date of hearing i.e. was listed for hearing, following order was passed by this Court: “Plaintiff No. 1-Devi Ram, is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below whereby the suit filed by plaintiff with his co-plaintiffs/respondents No. 4 and 5 herein for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed. After arguing for some time, when this Court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in th decrees, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present dispute is between the real brothers. It is, therefore, prayed that the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court to explore the amicable resolution of dispute between the parties. In view of the above, notice of motion be issued to the respondents only to the limited extent of exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 09.04.2025 at 10:00 A.M. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-6124-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 .… Appellant .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the appellant. /plaintiff No. 1 is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant and /respondents No. 4 and 5 herein was dismissed. On the last date of hearing i.e. 05.03.2025, when this case was listed for hearing, following order was passed by this Court:- Devi Ram, is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below whereby the suit filed by plaintiff along plaintiffs/respondents No. 4 and 5 herein for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed. After arguing for some time, when this Court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in the impugned judgment and decrees, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present dispute is between the real brothers. It is, therefore, prayed that the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court to explore the possibility of amicable resolution of dispute between the parties. In view of the above, notice of motion be issued to the respondents only to the limited extent of exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties. irected to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the appellant and , when this case Devi Ram, is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings rendered by both along plaintiffs/respondents No. 4 and 5 herein for After arguing for some time, when this Court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by e impugned judgment and decrees, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present dispute is between the real brothers. It is, therefore, prayed that the matter may be referred to the Mediation and possibility of In view of the above, notice of motion be issued to the respondents only to the limited extent of exploring the irected to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.19 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-6124- 3. Mediator that in view of the absence of the parties resolved being a 4. possibility accordingly, prayed 5. as it was the case of the appellant ancestral in nature and joint Hindu Family property. A finding of fact been returned by both the Courts below that the appellant was unable to prove that the suit property was ancestral in nature. On the contrary, the defendants have proved a Will dated 11.05.19 Executor Chhotey Lal 1-Dharambir the evidence of both the attesting witnesses who had proved the signatures and thumb impressions on the Will of execution of the said Will, the Testator was mentally fit. in the Will it is also mentioned by the been looking after him and he is happy with him; whereas the appella and proforma are living separately. Even Shiv Ram, Advocate who deposed that Will (Ex. D Writer Ganga Ram signed the same. DW -2018 (O&M) -2- Adjourned to 17.09.2025, Mediator.” Report dated 22.08.2025, has been received from the that in view of the absence of the parties resolved being a non-starter. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that possibility of amicable resolution of the dispute between the parties and accordingly, prayed that the present appeal may be disposed of. Even on merits, there is no ground to interfere in the matter as it was the case of the appellant-plaintiff that the suit property was ancestral in nature and joint Hindu Family property. A finding of fact been returned by both the Courts below that the appellant was unable to prove that the suit property was ancestral in nature. On the contrary, the defendants have proved a Will dated 11.05.19 Executor Chhotey Lal, had bequeathed the suit property to defendant No. Dharambir. The said Will was also proved in accordance with law the evidence of both the attesting witnesses who had proved the signatures and thumb impressions on the Will; and had also deposed that at the time of execution of the said Will, the Testator was mentally fit. in the Will it is also mentioned by the Testator that been looking after him and he is happy with him; whereas the appella and proforma-defendants are not rendering any service to him and they are living separately. Even Shiv Ram, Advocate who deposed that Will (Ex. D-4) was read over to Chhotey Lal Writer Ganga Ram, who had admitted the conten signed the same. DW-4 Om Parkash, Numberdar 17.09.2025, for awaiting report of the , has been received from the that in view of the absence of the parties, the case could not be Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no of amicable resolution of the dispute between the parties and that the present appeal may be disposed of. Even on merits, there is no ground to interfere in the matter plaintiff that the suit property was ancestral in nature and joint Hindu Family property. A finding of fact has been returned by both the Courts below that the appellant was unable to prove that the suit property was ancestral in nature. On the contrary, the defendants have proved a Will dated 11.05.1998 Ex. D-4, as per which the the suit property to defendant No. said Will was also proved in accordance with law from the evidence of both the attesting witnesses who had proved the signatures and had also deposed that at the time of execution of the said Will, the Testator was mentally fit. Furthermore, Testator that defendant No. 1 has been looking after him and he is happy with him; whereas the appellants are not rendering any service to him and they are living separately. Even Shiv Ram, Advocate was examined as DW-3 ) was read over to Chhotey Lal by Deed , who had admitted the contents thereof and then 4 Om Parkash, Numberdar, a respectable of the for awaiting report of the , has been received from the , the case could not be there is no of amicable resolution of the dispute between the parties and Even on merits, there is no ground to interfere in the matter plaintiff that the suit property was has been returned by both the Courts below that the appellant was unable to prove that the suit property was ancestral in nature. On the contrary, the , as per which the the suit property to defendant No. rom the evidence of both the attesting witnesses who had proved the signatures and had also deposed that at the time Furthermore, defendant No. 1 has nts by Deed ts thereof and then , a respectable of the RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.19 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-6124- village is the second attesting witness of the Will DW-4/A, has given elaborate account had also deposed that photograph of Chhotey Lal appeared before the Sub Registrar and the Will was registered. 6. controverted or disputed by lea second appeal, being meritless, is 7. 17.09.2025 rishu -2018 (O&M) -3- village is the second attesting witness of the Will , has given elaborate account qua had also deposed that photograph of Chhotey Lal appeared before the Sub Registrar and the Will was registered. In view of the above concurrent findings which are not controverted or disputed by learned counsel for the appellant, the present second appeal, being meritless, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand .09.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable village is the second attesting witness of the Will and in his affidavit Ex. qua the execution of the Will. He had also deposed that photograph of Chhotey Lal has been affixed and he appeared before the Sub Registrar and the Will was registered. In view of the above concurrent findings which are not rned counsel for the appellant, the present dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No his affidavit Ex. the execution of the Will. He affixed and he In view of the above concurrent findings which are not rned counsel for the appellant, the present RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.19 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.