- (1.) Cm No.5398-C of 2015 Application is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. RSA No. 2063 of 2015 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, dated 11.09.2013, whereby, the suit preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the respondent-defendant praying for a declaration to the effect that the petitioner is owner of the land to the extent of 1/12th share in the land measuring 15 biswas bearing Khewat/Khatoni No.104/158 comprised in khasra numbers as have been detailed in the head note of the plaint and further, for 1/4th share in the land measuring 99 bighas 0 biswas contained in khasra numbers as detailed in the head note, situated in the revenue estate of village Karala, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala and further, suit for declaration to the effect that collusive decree dated 07.11.1978 passed in Civil Suit No.298 dated 10.08.1978, passed in suit titled as Mohinder Singh & others Vs. Ujaggar Singh & others and the transfer of ownership-deed dated 13.03.2003 alleged to be executed by Rachna Singh in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 is illegal, null and void and having no binding effect over the rights of the plaintiff and the mutations No.1644 and 1127 and other entries made in revenue record showing the respondent-defendants No.1 and 2 to be the owners of the property and further that she be declared in joint possession of the property being an ancestral one stands dismissed, appeal against which preferred by the appellant-plaintiff has also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, on 19.01.2015.
(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent-defendants in their Civil Suit No.298 dated 10.08.1978, titled as Mohinder Singh & others Vs. Ujaggar Singh & others have themselves admitted that the property in dispute is a coparcenary Joint Hindu property, therefore, the decree as passed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Rajpura, dated 07.11.1978 is not sustainable and similar is the position with regard to the transfer deed in favour of respondent-defendants No.1 and 2. She contends that the joint Hindu family being coparcenary property cannot be got decreed or transferred merely at the will and fancy of the Karta and he is to prove and satisfy the mandate of legal necessity to do so and specific reasons are to be given for the same. The appellant-plaintiff and respondent-defendant No.3 being the daughters have been deprived of their legal rights as conferred upon them under the statute without any basis or justification especially when their father Rachna Singh could not have done so as it is not permissible in law. She, therefore, contends that the dismissal of the suit by the Courts below vide the impugned judgments cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside and suit of the appellant-plaintiff decreed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and with her assistance, have gone through the impugned judgments as also the plaint in the Civil Suit No.298 dated 10.08.1978.;