RAJA RAM AND ORS. Vs. SUNDER AND ORS.
LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-77
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on March 30,2016

Raja Ram and Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Sunder And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NARANJAN SINGH ETC. V/S. PARSA SINGH ALIAS PARSU [REFERRED TO]
NARANJAN SINGH V/S. MST. DIPO AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
PAT RAM AND OTHERS V/S. GRAM SABHA DIGROTA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER KAUR V/S. HARBHAJAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ANOTHER V/S. HARISH CHANDER AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RANI PURNIMA DEBI AND ANOTHER V/S. KUMAR KHAGENDRA NARAYAN DEB AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
C MOHAMMAD YUNUS VS. SYED UNNISSA [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA RAMBUX VS. CHAMPABAI [REFERRED TO]
M L ABDUL JABBAR SAHIB VS. M V VENKATA SASTRI AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PAL GOPAL DAS VS. PANCHU BALA DASI [REFERRED TO]
P P K GOPALAN NAMBIAR VS. P P K BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA NATH MUKHERJEE VS. PANCHANAN BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
JANKI NARAYAN BHOIR VS. NARAYAN NANDEO KADAM [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH VS. BIRBAL [REFERRED TO]
C NATRAJAN VS. ASHIM BAI [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH BABU VS. LAJPAT RAI SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
BHARPUR SINGH VS. SHAMSHER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
S R SRINIVASA VS. S PADMAVATHAMMA [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHURA MAL DAN DAYAL VS. IMPERIAL FLOUR MILLS LTD [REFERRED TO]
GURNAM SINGH VS. ASS KAUR [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH VS. KASHMIRA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH VS. SURINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANGAT RAM VS. DINA NATH DES RAJ [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER KAUR VS. MOHINDER SINGH FAUJI [REFERRED TO]
DYAL SINGH VS. MEEKO [REFERRED TO]
JANG BAHADUR VS. MANJIT KAUR [REFERRED TO]
AMAR KAUR VS. PARAMJIT KAUR [REFERRED TO]
BOYA PARESHAPPA VS. G.RAGHAVENDRA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Shekher Dhawan, J. - (1.)Present regular second appeal, filed by defendants No. 1 -Raja Ram and legal representatives of defendant No. 2 -Bhoop Singh, against the concurrent findings of facts having been recorded by both the Courts below.
(2.)For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first instance.
(3.)Relevant facts of the case that plaintiff -Smt. Sunder had filed a suit for declaration that she and proforma defendants No. 5 to 7 are the owners in equal share of 1/2 share of the suit land; Will dated 4.4.1969 is null and void and that does not affect the rights of the plaintiff and proforma defendants and mutation No. 662 dated 11.8.1970, sanctioned on the basis of impugned Will is also null and void. As per plaintiff, Smt. Dhappan widow of Ram Karan, mother of plaintiff and proforma defendants, was the owner of the suit land after the death of Ram Karan. Smt. Dhappan died on 28.3.1970 leaving behind the suit land. The suit land was to go to plaintiff and proforma defendants being the real daughters of Smt. Dhappan as her two sons died unmarried and there was no legal heir of deceased Smt. Dhappan except them. However, defendant No. 3 Sohan Lal son of Ladhu is a very clever person and he, in connivance with the revenue authorities, got mutation No. 622 dated 11.8.1970 sanctioned in favour of his two sons, namely Raja Ram and Bhup Singh. As per plaintiff, mutation No. 685 dated 25.4.1971 and mutation No. 726 dated 4.5.1972 are also illegal and void and the same be set aside.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.