Sham Lal v. Shiv Parshad

IN T

Whether only oper Pronounced or the

Sham Lal (since Shiv Parshad (si

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

(thr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

defendant (sinc concurrent findi and decree dated said judgment a vide judgment a Brief Facts

2.

Bri emption under S in House No. 4 was pleaded tha a Will dated 13. THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re

Pro

Up rative part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced: e deceased) through LRs VERSUS ince deceased) through LR ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Varun Baanth, Advocate for th rough Video Conferencing) r. Sahil Garg, Advocate for the re -.-

ANNU, J. e present Regular Second Appe ce deceased), through his le ings of the Courts below. The l d 9.11.1987, decreed the suit fil and decree were affirmed by th and decree dated 16.11.1990. iefly stated, the plaintiff filed a Section 22 of the Hindu Success 4291/2 (old), new No. AMC-16 at the property originally belong .01.1955 bequeathing the dispute

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-671-1991 (O&M) served on:-08.01.2026 onounced on:- 09.01.2026 ploaded on:- 09.01.2026 operative part/full judgment

....Appellant

....Respondent DEEP PANNU he appellant espondent. eal has been filed by the appella egal representatives, against learned Trial Court, vide judgm ed by the plaintiff–respondent. T he learned Lower Appellate Co suit for possession by way of p sion Act, 1956, in respect of a sh 634/III, situated at Ambala City ged to Tula Ram, who had execu ed house in favour of his wife Pu

- ant– ment ourt pre-hare y. It uted

Devi. Upon the of the disputed h

3.

It w behind her lega Lachhmi Chand plaintiff, all the each. Lachhmi heirs stepped int

4.

house. It was p Brij Mohan, V described as 1/3 deed dated 10.8 entitled only to deed was exagg the real market v

5.

of pre-emption u no notice of the coming to know admit his right o filing of the suit

6.

Up factum of sale a denied the plain death of Tula Ram, Purni Devi b house. was further pleaded that Purni al heirs, namely the plaintiff, d and Sohan Lal, as detailed in th heirs inherited the disputed hou Chand and Sohan Lal had pred to their shoes. e plaintiff asserted that he was i leaded that the legal heirs of S Vijay Kumari, Lakhbir Chand 3rd share in the disputed house to

8.1981 for a consideration of Rs 1/4th share. It was alleged that t erated in order to defeat the plain value of the share sold was not m e plaintiff claimed that being a under Section 22 of the Hindu S e intended sale was ever given w of the impugned sale, the p of pre-emption, but the defendan t. on notice, the defendant filed and the original ownership of T ntiff's claim of equal shares and

became the full and absolute ow Devi died on 01.06.1979, leav Gian Devi, and the branches he pedigree table. According to use in equal shares, i.e. 1/4th sh deceased, and their respective le in possession of the entire dispu ohan Lal, namely Subhash Cha and Vidya Wati, sold what w o the defendant vide registered s s. 8,000/-, though in fact they w the sale price mentioned in the s ntiff's right of pre-emption and t more than Rs. 4,000/-. co-heir, he had a preferential ri Succession Act. It was pleaded t to the plaintiff by the vendors. laintiff requested the defendant nt refused to do so, necessitating a written statement admitting Tula Ram. However, the defend asserted that the vendors had 1/

- wner ving s of hare egal uted and, was sale were sale that ight that On t to dant /3rd

share in the dis that the vendors therefore, Sectio

7.

Rs.8,000/- was pleaded that the was available. T and had consen purchase the sh pre-emption in harass the defen parties and main

8.

By of a decree, he besides the sale impugned sale.

9.

defendant and re

10.

On framed the follo

¶1sale

¶2pai puted house and were competen s had acquired the share by survi on 22 of the Hindu Succession A e defendant further pleaded genuine, was fixed in good faith e disputed house was urban pro The defendant asserted that the p nted to the same, and that the are when offered. It was also pl Ambala City and that the suit ndant. Objections regarding locu ntainability of the suit were also way of amendment, the defenda was entitled to reimbursement price, and reiterated that the pl e plaintiff filed a replication eaffirmed the averments made in n the basis of the pleadings of t owing issues: Whether the plaintiff has go e in question? OPP Whether the sale price was d? OPD

nt to sell the same. It was plea ivorship and not by inheritance a Act was not applicable. that the sale consideration h and was actually paid. It was a operty and no right of pre-empt plaintiff had knowledge of the s e plaintiff had earlier declined leaded that there was no custom t was false, vexatious and filed us standi, non-joinder of necess raised. ant further pleaded that in the ev t of stamp and registration char aintiff had no right to pre-empt denying the pleas raised by n the plaint. the parties, the learned Trial Co ot a superior right to pre-empt fixed in good faith or was actua

- ded and, of also tion sale d to m of d to sary vent rges ourt

¶3suit

¶4is m

5.

6.

¶7and OP

8. OP

9.

Aft following additi

¶1reg Findings of the

11.

on record, held in dispute and s owner of the d

13.01.1955 bequ was duly prov unrebutted. Upo by inheritance u If Issue No. 2 is not proved t land at the time of sale? OP Whether the suit under Secti maintainable? OPP Whether the plaintiff has locu Whether the plaintiff has wai Whether the vendors had on d were not competent to transfer PD Whether the suit is bad for PD Relief. ter framing the afore-mentioned ional issue:- Whether the vendee-defen gistration charges, if so, to what a e trial Court e learned Trial Court, after appre that the relationship between th tood duly established. It was fou disputed house and that he h ueathing the property in favour ved through attesting and m on the death of Purni Devi in th upon the plaintiff, Gian Devi an

, what was the market value of ion 22 of the Hindu Succession A us standi to file this suit? OPP ived his right of pre-emption? O nly 1/4th share in the suit prope r 1/3rd share, if so, to what effe r non-joinder of necessary parti d issues, the trial further framed ndant is entitled to stamp a amount? OPD eciating the pleadings and evide he plaintiff and the vendors was und that Tula Ram was the origi ad validly executed a will da of his wife Purni Devi, which W marginal witnesses and remain e year 1979, the property devolv nd the branches of Lachhmi Ch

- Act PD erty ect? ies? and ence not inal ated Will ved

and Sohan Lal, Court rejected th and held that th had inherited th predeceased Pu Purni Devi and vendors.

12.

plaintiff had a p Hindu Successio of the sale by w given to the pla was rejected f maintainable an repelled by rel preferential righ

13.

right of pre-emp acquiescence on of parties, as the pre-emption. On the defendant an of Rs.8,000/- w market value reimbursement o all falling in Class-I heirs und he plea that the vendors had inh hey derived their share by succes he property under the Will. It w urni Devi, and consequently th not through Sohan Lal, render e Trial Court further held tha preferential right to acquire the on Act and that such right could way of a civil suit. The plea that n aintiff or that the sale was effec for want of evidence. The c nd that only an application cou lying upon judicial precedents ht after sale lies only through a ci e Trial Court further found tha ption and that there was no mat n his part. It was also held that th e vendors or other co-heirs were n the question of consideration, nd the attesting witnesses and he was actually paid and fixed in redundant. The Court, ho of stamp and registration expens

der the Hindu Succession Act. T herited the property by survivors ssion from Purni Devi, who her was further held that Sohan Lal h he vendors inherited directly fr ring the plaintiff a co-heir with at in view of the co-heirship, share sold under Section 22 of d be enforced even after complet notice of the intended sale had b cted with his consent or knowle contention that the suit was uld lie under Section 22 was a holding that enforcement of ivil suit. at the plaintiff had not waived terial to show any abandonment the suit was not bad for non-join e not necessary parties to a suit the Court accepted the evidence eld that the entire sale considerat good faith, rendering the issue owever, allowed the defend ses incurred by him.

- ship self had rom tion een dge not also his t or nder for e of tion e of

14.

On Court conclude emption under maintainable, an emption of the s the expenses al aggregating to deposit the said deposited, on or with costs. Findings of the

15.

Fee judgment and de Lower Appella findings recorde the core issue maintainability appellate court founded on the j of Haryana (19 relationship had decision in Atam preferential righ further observed the findings of n the cumulative appreciation of d that the plaintiff had a supe Section 22 of the Hindu Su nd consequently decreed the su share sold, subject to payment o llowed to the defendant toward Rs.9,300/-. It was further direc pre-emption amount, after adju r before 17.12.1987, failing wh e Lower Appellate Court eling aggrieved, the defendant-Sh ecree dated 09.11.1987 filed by ate Court, after reappreciating ed by the Trial Court, concurred es relating to the plaintiff's of the suit under Section 22 o noticed that the principal chall judgment of the Hon'ble Suprem 986) 2 SCC 249, contending that d been declared ultra vires. The L m Parkash's case (supra) did n ht conferred under Section 22 d that no other substantive argum f the Trial Court. Consequently

evidence and law, the learned T erior and enforceable right of p uccession Act, that the suit w uit for possession by way of p of the sale consideration along w ds stamp and registration charg cted that the plaintiff shall pay usting the sum of Rs.1,600/- alre hich the suit would stand dismis ham Lal filed the appeal against the learned trial Court. The learn the pleadings, evidence and d with the conclusions arrived at right of pre-emption and of the Hindu Succession Act. T lenge raised by the defendant w me Court in Atam Parkash v. St t the right of pre-emption based Lower Appellate Court held that not dilute or override the statut of the Act upon co-heirs. It w ment had been advanced to dislo y, the appellate court affirmed

- Trial pre-was pre-with ges, y or ady ssed t on was tate d on tory was

findings recorde Court, and dism

16.

Ag appellant has ap Submissions of

17.

Lea judgments and contended that t had executed a devolved upon said finding is e

18.

It w vendors were c property in disp Purni Devi, and this premise, it emption and the

19.

Lea the Courts below the plaintiff. It w duly informed t had offered the having knowled thereby conscio submitted that o ed on Issues No.1 and 4, uphe missed the appeal as being devoid grieved against the concurre pproached this Court by way of th f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellant– decrees passed by the courts b the courts below committed a gr a valid Will in favour of Smt. her by testamentary succession. rroneous and contrary to the evid was further argued that the Co co-heirs with the plaintiff. Le pute was inherited by the vendo therefore the vendors were not was contended that the plaintif e findings recorded on Issues No arned counsel for the appellant w erred in holding that no notic was argued that prior to executio the plaintiff of their intention to same to him. According to lea dge of the proposed sale, decli ously chose not to exercise h once the plaintiff had refused to p

eld the decree passed by the T d of merit. ent judgments and decrees, he present Regular Second Appe lant –defendant assailed the concurr below on multiple grounds. It w rave error in holding that Tula R Purni Devi and that the prope . According to learned counsel, dence on record. ourts below wrongly held that earned counsel submitted that ors from their father and not fr co-heirs with the plaintiff at all. ff had no preferential right of p .1 and 4 were unsustainable. t–defendant further contended t e of the intended sale was given on of the sale deed, the vendors h sell their share in the property arned counsel, the plaintiff, desp ined to purchase the property his right of pre-emption. It w purchase the share when offered

- Trial eal. rent was Ram erty rom On pre-that n to had and pite and was , he

could not subs Succession Act had, by his con ought to have be Submissions of

20.

Per the entire challe of facts and law by Tula Ram in finality. Upon th her Class-I heirs status as co-heir

21.

Lea survivorship has last full owner o circumstances, confers a statuto

22.

On sale was ever g upon the defend statement of on plaintiff was in property. It was establish waive unpartitioned an sequently invoke the provisio to challenge the sale. Learned c nduct, waived his preferential r een dismissed on this ground alo f learned counsel for the respon r contra, learned counsel for the enge raised by the appellant proc w. It was argued that the finding favour of Purni Devi is based o he death of Purni Devi, the prop s, including the plaintiff and the rs. arned counsel further submitte s been rightly rejected by the Co of the property and succession o Section 22 of the Hindu Suc ory preferential right upon the pla n the issue of notice, it was subm given to the plaintiff. The burde dant, who sought to defeat a sta ne of the vendors, there is no ev nformed of the proposed sale o s further contended that there is r, particularly when the proper nd the plaintiff continued to hold

ons of Section 22 of the Hin counsel thus urged that the plain right, and the suit for pre-empt one. ndent respondent–plaintiff submitted t ceeds on an incorrect understand regarding execution of a valid w on cogent evidence and has attain perty devolved by succession up e vendors, thereby establishing th d that the plea of inheritance ourts below, as Purni Devi was opened only after her death. In su ccession Act squarely applies aintiff. mitted that no notice of the inten n to prove such notice lay entir atutory right. Except for a bald o vidence on record to show that or that he refused to purchase not even a scintilla of evidence rty admittedly remained joint d one-fourth share therein.

- ndu ntiff tion that ding will pon heir by uch and ded rely oral e to

Findings of this

23.

I ha judgments and placed on file.

24.

the vendors inhe the provisions o being a co-heir, any notice of the

25.

considered. The untenable in vie owner of the pr the property dev the death of a Consequently, survivorship, ren

26.

devoid of merit Section 22 stand emption.

27.

As establish that th to exercise his r documentary or s Court ave heard learned counsel for the decrees passed by both the co e principal questions which aris erited the property by survivorsh of Section 22 of the Hindu Succe had a preferential right to purch e intended sale was given to the e contentions raised on behalf e plea that the vendors inherite ew of the concurrent finding th roperty under a valid will execu volved by succession upon her h female owner, the concept of the vendors derived their int ndering Section 22 of the Hindu e challenge to the applicability o t. The statutory preferential rig ds on a different footing from cu regards notice, the burden wa e plaintiff had been informed of right. Mere oral assertion of one independent evidence, is insuffi

e parties and have gone through ourts below as well as the rec e for consideration are: (i) whet hip or by succession so as to attr ession Act; (ii) whether the plaint hase the share sold; and (iii) whet plaintiff so as to defeat such righ f of the appellant have been d ed the property by survivorship at Purni Devi became the absol uted by Tula Ram. Upon her dea heirs. Once succession opened a f survivorship had no applicati terest by inheritance and not Succession Act fully applicable or validity of Section 22 is equa ht conferred upon a co-heir un ustomary or relationship-based p as squarely upon the defendant f the intended sale and had declin of the vendors, unsupported by icient to discharge this burden.

- cord ther ract tiff, ther ht. duly p is lute ath, after ion. by e. ally nder pre-t to

28.

Equ must be clear, position is that continued to hol overt act on the cannot be presum Conclusion

29.

In v Trial Court and appreciation of e

30.

devoid of meri affirmed.

31.

Pen

January 09, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh ually untenable is the plea of w unequivocal and intentional. I t the property was joint and u ld one-fourth share therein. In th e part of the plaintiff evincing med. view of the above discussion, th affirmed by the learned Lower A evidence and correct application e present Regular Second Appe it. The judgments and decrees nding application(s), if any, also

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

waiver. Waiver of a statutory ri In the present case, the admit unpartitioned and that the plain he absence of proof of notice or abandonment of his right, wai he findings recorded by the learn Appellate Court are based on pro n of law. eal is accordingly dismissed, be s passed by the courts below stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o.

- ight tted ntiff any iver oper eing