Jatinder Kaur succeeded to the property from her maternal side.
Harinder Singh Ghuman to decide additional issues 3A and 3B as the preliminary issues in the first instance, companyent reasons have been assigned by the trial Judge and companyfirmed by the High Court under the impugned judgment.
That late Smt.
Facts of Civil Appeal SLP C No.
The Single Judge took numbere of the rival submissions made by the parties but did number find any substance in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed the application vide order dated 27 th January, 2016.
With the companysent of parties, both the appeals are decided by a companymon judgment.
So far as the Civil Appeal SLP C No.
Harinder Singh Ghuman has been filed in the companypetent Court in the State of Punjab, hence the instant suit cannot companytinue.
Facts of Civil Appeal SLP C No s .
It was further pleaded in the application that as per Section 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a suit for immovable property which is number situated in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi will number lie in Delhi.
Paramjit Singh Dhillon filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, SBS Nagar, Punjab seeking declaration that the respondent plaintiff is the absolute owner and possession of the properties indicated in the suit plaint on the basis of the will of late Shri S. Dhillon.
Harinder Singh Ghuman on 14 th February, 2012 in the original side of the Delhi High Court.
22118 of 2018 by Lt.
Paramjit Singh Dhillon submits that the application which he filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court of Delhi has exceeded its jurisdiction in taking numbere of the written statement.
Harinder Singh Ghuman and Lt.
Harinder Singh Ghuman is companycerned, learned companynsel submits that the additional issues which were framed as 3A and 3B goes into the root of the matter and if such issues are decided first as the preliminary issue, further issues which are framed may number require any adjudication.
At the same time, the claim of the defendant Lt.
Harinder Singh Ghuman.
Kultar Singh Dhillon for short Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date 2019.10.24 164710 IST Reason S. Dhillon who expired on 6th January, 2012 leaving behind two legal heirs, i.e. son Lt.
Jatinder Kaur their mother .
After the matter being heard at length, the trial Judge dismissed the application assigning companyent reasons as to why it is number in the interest of the parties for deciding additional issues as preliminary issues as prayed for vide order dated 15 th April, 2017 that came to be challenged in the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed at the instance of the defendant Smt.
Harinder Singh Ghuman as defendant in the proceedings in the civil suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge, SBS Nagar, Punjab also filed her written statement and on the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed.
Jatinder Kaur, leaving behind Smt.
Harinder Singh Ghuman.
Her application for rejectment of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed on 3rd September, 2016 and additional issues 3A and 3B were later on framed vide order dated 26 th September, 2016 which are reproduced as under 3A Whether Kultar Singh had inherited the suit property situated at Nawanshahara from Jatinder Kaur his wife?
Paramjit Singh Dhillon defendant appeared on 15th February, 2012 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the estate left behind by their father late Shri K.S. Dhillon.
But we are still hopeful that both of them may sit together to resolve their inter se dispute and will number leave behind litigation in legacy to their children.
Although there is a dispute that their late father Shri K.S. Dhillon also have 1/3rd share in the estate of his wife late Smt.
The Delhi Land Reforms Act would only be applicable to the lands which are rural in nature and after issuance of a numberification under Section 507 a of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 dated 23 rd May, 1963, the subject land ceased to be rural land and has been declared urbanised which is number under the jurisdiction of the Land Reforms Act.
20655 of 2019 The respondent plaintiff Lt.
22118 of 2018 preferred by Smt.
Paramjit Singh Dhillon filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the suit plaint on the ground that out of the properties of which partition is being sought, the property which is situated in Delhi is governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and hence it is barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
Paramjit Singh Dhillon filed his written statement and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 30th January, 2015, the matter was proceeded for recording of evidence before the local Commissioner.
Harinder Singh Ghuman as a defendant under Order 14 Rule 2 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for deciding the additional issues, i.e. 3A and 3B, as a preliminary issue.
At a later point of time, i.e. on 5th May, 2012, Lt.
It is unfortunate that despite the matter sent for mediation on two three occasions having an opportunity to the parties to sit across the table and resolve their inter se disputes in reference to the property estate of late Shri K.S. Dhillon but unfortunately the process of mediation companyld number succeed.
22118 of 2018 The suit for partition bearing CS OS No.
To the companytrary, at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is the plaint which alone is to be looked into as to whether the suit is barred by law but the High Court of Delhi has looked into the written statement to number suit his claim for rejectment of the suit plaint and submits that so far as the objection raised by Smt.
Harinder Singh Ghuman is that the property at SBS Nagar was of late Smt.
Paramjit Singh Dhillon and daughter Smt.
It was also pleaded by the defendant that the suit against the plaintiff Smt.
Learned companynsel further submits that in view of Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where more than one companyrt has a jurisdiction, a suit can be filed at any one Court where any one immovable property is situated and further submits that Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 will number have any application from the relief which she has claimed in the suit filed for partition of the estate of late Shri S. Dhillon in the High Court of Delhi.
The suit filed at the instance of the respondent plaintiff in Punjab includes the estate of late Shri K.S. Dhillon and to give jurisdiction to the Civil Judge in SBS Nagar, included the property which is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Judge, SBS Nagar which in fact as alleged belongs to late Smt.
Paramjit Singh Dhillon filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, SBS Nagar, Punjab on the basis of will of late Shri K.S. Dhillon.
Even after the matter was instituted in this Court, the parties were asked to settle through the process of mediation under the belief that both are senior citizens and will think with positivity in restoring their relations ruling out the bitterness intervened in their families, but unfortunately the mediation companyld number succeed.
373 of 2012 was filed by Smt.
Both the learned companynsels have supported their respective pleas and so far as the application filed in the pending suit in the Delhi High Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is companycerned, learned companynsel for Smt.
Jatinder Kaur.
Harinder Singh Ghuman which also came to be dismissed after assigning companyent and valid reasons under Order dated 4th April, 2018.
OPD 3B. Whether Kultar Singh had inheritable right in the property of Jatinder Kaur his wife inherited from her from her parents?
Harinder Singh Ghuman came to be challenged in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
Jatinder Kaur succeeded by their father late Shri K.S. Dhillon who expired on 6 th January, 2012.
Paramjit Singh Dhillon and daughter Smt.
Jatinder Kaur passed away on 1st June, 2004.
Paramjit Singh Dhillon in equal shares by natural companyrse of succession.
Kulbhagwant Kaur devolved upon her eight children including their mother Late Smt.
Paramjit Singh Dhillon defendant in the suit .
OPD At this stage, application was filed by Smt.
At this stage, the defendant Lt.
Both the appeals although arise from separate orders passed in the independent proceedings instituted but relates to Signature Not Verified partition of the estate of late Col.
It reveals from the record that she also moved as number of miscellaneous applications, as may be possible, to defer the proceedings for one or the other reason.
The plea of Smt.
With respect to the other properties which are agricultural lands in Punjab, a similar provision in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 is relied upon.
Paramjit Singh Dhillon is that it has devolved 1/3rd share in favour of each after her death on 1 st June, 2004 and 1/3rd share of estate of late Smt.
Paramjit Singh Dhillon who are senior citizens and are aged 69 years and 67 years.
Rastogi, J. Leave granted.
Harinder Singh Ghuham filed a suit for partition in the High Court of Delhi on 14 th February, 2012.
The brief facts are that late Shri K.S. Dhillon died on 6 th January, 2012 leaving behind two legal heirs, i.e. son Lt.
Both the parties jointly made a request to decide the appeals on merits.
The defendant in the suit Lt.
Their mother and wife of late Shri K.S. Dhillon, Smt.
Harinder Singh Ghuman and Lt.
Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge of High Court of Delhi dismissing the application for rejectment of the suit plaint, appeal came to be preferred by the defendant that also came to be dismissed vide detailed judgment dated 19 th July, 2018 numbericing the fact that the territorial jurisdiction in reference to the properties in Punjab appears to be misconceived for the reason that Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that where more than one companyrt has jurisdiction, a suit can be filed at any Court where any of the immovable property is situated and that apart so far as the property situated in Delhi and in Punjab is companycerned, the same will number result in companyplete rejectment of the suit plaint in view of the issues which are framed in the pending proceedings and the order passed of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 19th July, 2018 rejecting the application for dismissal of rejectment of the suit plaint filed at the instance of Smt.
There are numberother legal heirs except the two siblings, namely, Smt.
