IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
107 RSA No.4315 of 2019 (OM)
Date of decision: 19.09.2019

AMARJIT KAUR AND ANR … Appellants
Versus

NACHHATTAR SINGH AND ORS … Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present :
Mr. DK Prajapati, Advocate/legal aid counsel
for the appellants.
****
REKHA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against
concurrent findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit filed by the
appellants/plaintiffs to challenge sale deed No.2864 dated 08.01.1960
executed by Tara Singh and Mohinder Singh through his mother Sham Kaur
was challenged on the premise that Sham Kaur was not competent to
alienate property of minor Mohinder Singh, without seeking permission of
the Court under the Guardians and SectionWards Act, 1890. It is further argued that
suit property was ancestral co-parcenary property in which the appellants
have right being the widow and son of late Mohinder Singh.

As per case set up by the appellants, Mohinder Singh was born
in the year 1948, therefore, he was 12 years old at the time of execution of
sale deed on his behalf by his mother Sham Kaur. Even if plea of appellants
is accepted that Mohinder Singh attained majority in the year 1966, he could
institute a suit within three years from the date of disability on account of
minority ceased to exist. Mohinder Singh remained alive till the year 1993
but did not challenge sale deed executed on his behalf by his mother. The
appellants have sought to allege that Mohinder Singh was not aware of the
sale deed or he remained ailing, therefore, suit could not be filed. The fact
whether Mohinder Singh was aware of the sale or not could only be proved
by Mohinder Singh. If such a vague plea of the appellants is accepted and
they are permitted to challenge sale of 1960 by filing a suit in the year 2016,
it would open pandora’s box to unsettle the things which have already
attained finality. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to

1 of 2
02-10-2019 11:31:22 :::
RSA No.4315 of 2019 (OM) -2-
interfere in consistent findings recorded by the Courts.

For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit, the appeal fails and
is accordingly dismissed in limine. As the appeal has been decided on
merits, application for condonation of delay is of academic relevance

19.09.2019 (REKHA MITTAL)
ashok JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes / No
Whether reportable: Yes / No

2 of 2
02-10-2019 11:31:23 :::