Shakuntla Devi And Others vs Sanjiv Kumar And Others

XOBJS-20-C-1990
1
in RSA-1795-1990

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102
XOBJS-20-C-1990 in
RSA-1795-1990 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.11.2026
SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND ANR. .....Appellants
Versus
SANJIV KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gurinder Singh, Advocate
for cross-objector.
Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate and
Ms. Prerana Yadav, Advocate
for respondents No.3 and 4 in cross-objection.

PARMOD GOYAL , J.(Oral)
1. In the present case, respondent No. 1-plaintiff-cross objector is
aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 24.09.1988 passed by Sub-Judge
First Class, Bathinda whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction
preferred by respondent NO. 1-plaintiff was dismissed and partially
aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 06.06.1990 passed by Additional
District Judge, Bathinda whereby respondent NO. 1-plaintiff was held to be
absolute owner in possession only of part of property bearing No.4677 as per
site plan annexed with the plaint.
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2. The suit for declaration and permanent injunction preferred by

XOBJS-20-C-1990
2
in RSA-1795-1990
respondent No. 1-plaintiff was contested by defendants wherein they
claimed that the suit property was earlier owned by Girdhari Lal, who vide
his Will dated 12.03.1982 had bequeathed the entire property in favour of
appellant-defendant No.2-Varinder Kumar @ Deepak son of Girdhari Lal.
Accordingly, dismissal of suit was prayed for.
3. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed.
“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to 1/2 share in the suit
property as pleaded in the plaint?OPP.
2. Whether Varinder Kumar is son of deceased Girdari
Lal as pleaded in the written statement? OPD (onus
objected to).
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed
for?OPP.
4. Whether deceased Girdari Lal gifted away part of
property with Shakuntla Devi as pleaded in the written
statement filed by her? OPD.
5. Whether deceased Girdari Lal executed valid will in
favour or Varinder Kumar defendant? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her act and
conduct from filing the suit?OPD
7. Whether suit in the present form is maintainable?OPP.
(onus objected to).
8. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary
parties?OPD
9. hether the site plan attached with the plaint is wrong?
If so, its effect?OPD.
10. Relief.”
4. Apart from above noted issues, additional issue bearing Issue
No.9A “whether Sanjiv Kumar is the adopted son of Bhagwan Dai? If so its
effect?” was also framed on impleadment of Sanjeev Kumar who claimed
himself to be adopted son of Bhagwan Dai (original plaintiff) and Girdhari
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJS-20-C-1990
3
in RSA-1795-1990
Lal. The main issues i.e Issue Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 9A determining the rights of
plaintiff and defendants in suit property were all decided by learned Court of
first instance against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants and
accordingly suit for declaration preferred by plaintiff- Bhagwan Dai was
dismissed.
5. On appeal preferred by respondent No.1-plaintiff/cross-
objector, the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide impugned
judgment and decree dated 06.06.1990 had partly reversed the findings of
learned Court of first instance by holding that Varinder Kumar is biological
son of Girdhari Lal and had decided Issue No.2 in favour of defendant No.2
and had also held that Girdhari Lal had gifted part of property to appellant-
defendant No. 1 Shakuntala Devi as pleaded in written statement. The Will
executed by Girdhari Lal in favour of appellant-defendant No. 2 Varinder
Kumar was also held to be validly executed. However, while holding that
Girdhari Lal had executed a valid Will dated 12.03.1982, it was held that
property described as property No. 3 in the Will, which was stated to be
under the tenancy of Budh Singh and left for maintenance of Bhagwan Dai
was held to be absolute property of Bhagwan Dai. It was held that property
which was given to Bhagwan Dai under the Will qua her maintenance would
exclusively vest in Bhagwan Dai as absolute owner. While deciding Issue
No.9A it was also held by learned first Appellate Court that respondent
No.1-plaintiff-Sanjeev Kumar was validly adopted by relying upon adoption
deed and accordingly it was held that respondent No.1-plaintiff-Sanjeev
Kumar had succeeded the estate of plaintiff-Bhagwan Dai.
6. In present case, dispute is regarding Property bearing No.4677
which as per plaintiff was in five parts, Part A, B, C, D and E duly depicted
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJS-20-C-1990
4
in RSA-1795-1990
in site plan. Girdhari Lal while executing his Will dated 12.03.1982 had
made reference only to property C mentioned in site plan as mentioned as
property No. 3 in the Will and Property D and E mentioned as property No.
4 in the will. Property No. 3 has been described as “One unit Shop situated
at Mall Road, Bathinda bounded as East: Girdari Lal, West: Shop of
Shakuntala Devi, North: Mall Road, South: Residence of Girdhari Lal, in
which at present Budh Singh tenant is sitting.” Whereas Property No.4
described in the Will dated 12.03.1982 “One unit shop situated at Mall
Road, Bathinda bounded as bounded as East: Shop of Bihari Lal, West: Shop
under tenancy of Budh Singh, North:Mall Road, South: Residence of
Girdhari Lal.”
7. Appellants-defendants being aggrieved by findings of first
Appellate Court, had preferred a regular second appeal bearing No. RSA-
1795-1990. It is worth mentioning that prior to filing regular second appeal,
appellant-defendant No.2 had sold Property D and E in site plan which was
under the tenancy of Bihari Lal, to the newly added respondents i.e.
respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are subsequent purchasers from Varinder Singh
vide sale deed dated 28.06.1990 . The appeal as well as cross-objection
preferred by defendants against judgment and decree dated 06.06.1990
passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, however were
dismissed in default. However, prior to dismissal newly added respondents
i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4, had preferred an application under Order 1
Rule 10 as well as Order 22 Rule 10 CPC,1908 for their impleadment as
subsequent purchasers or successor of interest of appellant-defendant No.2.
Said applications were duly allowed by this Court vide order dated
13.11.2024.
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJS-20-C-1990
5
in RSA-1795-1990
8. Respondent No.1-plaintiff-cross-objector being aggrieved by
order dated 13.11.2024, had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way
of Special Leave Petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated
27.07.2026 had dismissed the application preferred by newly added
respondents for their impleadment in appeal, however allowed them to be
impleaded in cross-objections whereby virtually upholding dismissal of
appeal and allowing revival of cross-objection. Therefore, in present case
only the cross-objections are required to be considered.
9. In present case, respondent No.1-plaintiff-cross-objector is
challenging findings of learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda on issue
No.2 and has argued that learned Courts below had wrongly held that
appellant-defendant No.2-Varinder Kumar is son of deceased Girdhari Lal.
On consideration, I find that there is no merit in contention raised on behalf
of respondent No.1-plaintiff-cross-objector that appellant-defendant No.2
Varinder Kumar has failed to prove that he was son of deceased Girdhari
Lal. Both the Courts have duly taken into consideration evidence led by both
the sides and has specially taken into consideration the school register
pertaining to school (Ex.D-3/2) as well as congratulatory letter (Ex.D6)
written by none else but by Bhagwan Dai wherein she had congratulated
Girdhari Lal on the birth of his son appellant-defendant No.2-Varinder
Kumar.
10. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts therefore is
based upon due appreciation of evidence led before them and therefore
warrants no interference by this Court. No question of law arises from Issue
No.2. The findings on Issue No.2 is pure question of fact which has been

recorded on basis of evidence, therefore upheld.
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJS-20-C-1990
6
in RSA-1795-1990
11. In view of registered gift deed dated 16.03.1959 (Ex. DW7/A),
the findings on Issue No.9A regarding adoption of respondent No.1-plaintiff-
Sanjeev Kumar by Bhagwan Dai again has been rightly been decided by
learned first Appellate Court as learned Court of first instance had failed to
take into consideration adoption deed (Ex.A1) which was duly placed on
record. Learned First Appellate Court, had duly taken in consideration
factum of adoption on 11.04.1982. The relevant portion is reproduced as
under for ready reference:
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the
findings of the trial court on issue No 9-A are wrong.
There was ample oral and documentary evidence on the
record of the case to prove that Sanjiv Kumar is the
adopted son of Girdhari Lal and Bhagwan Dai plaintiff.
The adoption deed Ex.Al has been over looked and
ignored by the trial court without any cogent reason and
merely on surmises and conjectures. After giving my
careful and considered thought to this argument of
learned counsel for the appellant, I find force it it. It is
alleged that Sanjiv Kumar was adopted by Girahari Lal
and Bhagwan Dai two days prior to Baisakhi 1982 in the
month of April. Dhamamvir natural father of Sanjiv
Kumar-plaintiff has appeared in the witness box as AW-7
and he has stated that Sanjiv Kumar plaintiff was
adopted by Girdhari Lal, his real uncle. Bhagwan Dai
was the wife of Girdhari Lal, but she had no issue.
Bhagwan Dai used to reside at Bathinda whereas
Girdhari Lal some times resided at Bathinda and some
times at Ambala. Sanjiv Kumar used to look after
Bhagwan Dai and the adoption ceremony took place in
the month of April 1982 one day prior to Baisakhi. At
that time respectables Madań Lal, Pandit Girdhari Lal
Vaid, Chhote Lal, Babu Girdhari Lal, Bhagwan Dai,
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJS-20-C-1990
7
in RSA-1795-1990
Pandit Rajinder Kumar etc. had collected at the house of
Bhagwan Dai and a HAWAN was performed. Some
neighbours were also present. He and his wife gave the
child in adoption to Bhagwan Dai and Girdhari Lal was
also sitting there and LADDUS were distributed. A
writing was also executed on 23-9-1982 at the instance
of Bhagwani Dai which was scribed by Harinder Kumar
Kalia petitioner writer and was attested by Sohan Lal
Gupta and Mathra Dass Municipal Commissioners. This
witness and his wife also attested the writing, thereafter
they appeared before the Sub Registrar and the adoption
deed was registered. Photostat copy of the same is Ex.-
A1. Harinder Kumar Kalia appeared as A.W.4 has
proved the photostat copy Ex.Al of the adoption deed
dated 23-9-1982. Rajinder Parshad-A.W.3 also stated
that the writing was made in his presence.
12. The learned Appellate Court had also taken into consideration
that at the time of adoption of respondent No.1-plaintiff-Sanjeev Kumar by
Bhagwan Dai, both the wives of Girdhari Lal were alive i.e Bhagwan Dai
and Shakuntala Devi and in view of Section 7, Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act,1956, Bhagwan Dai, who was issueless could have adopted
respondent No.1-plaintiff-Sanjeev Kumar validly.
13. Learned counsel for newly added respondents (respondents No.
3 and 4) who are subsequent purchasers from Varinder Kumar had made
reference to Section 11 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and
argued that in presence of a living son, adoption was not valid. However, the
findings of fact recorded by first Appellate Court is not being disturbed in
present cross-objections preferred by respondent No.1-plaintiff-cross-
objector for a simple reason that adoption is not an issue in present cross-
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 17:03
objections as none is appearing on behalf of original defendants. Right of
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJS-20-C-1990
8
in RSA-1795-1990
newly added respondents is restricted only to the extent of share which they
had purchased from appellant-defendant No.2-Varinder Kumar. Admittedly,
they have not purchased any part of property which had fallen to the share of
respondent No.1-plaintiff-cross-objector vide judgment and decree dated
06.06.1990. Infact, the claim of subsequent purchaser is as regards to
property No. D and E as per site plan/Property No.4 as per Will, which was
stated to be under tenancy of Bihari Lal and therefore it is not open for
newly added respondents/subsequent purchasers to challenge findings of
Issue No.9A, when the appeal preferred by appellants-defendants stands
dismissed from whom they have purchased the suit property. Therefore, no
interference in findings of learned first Appellate Court as regards to Issue
No.9A is warranted and same is accordingly,upheld.
14. Faced with the above findings of learned first Appellate Court,
respondent No.1-plaintiff-cross-objector has argued that learned first
Appellate Court had erred in decreeing the suit partly qua Property No.C
mentioned in site plan/ property No.3 in Will and the learned first Appellate
Court ought to have decreed the suit in totality and ought to have held
respondent No.1-plaintiff-cross-objector to be owner of entire property
mentioned in site plan (Ex. P2). Respondent No.1-plaintiff-cross-objector is
mainly aggrieved by limited finding of learned first Appellate Court to the
extent that respondent No.1-plaintiff-cross-objector has become absolute
owner of property C which was handed over to Bhagwan Dai towards her
maintenance rights as per the Will. It is argued that entire property ought to
have been vested in respondent No.1-plaintiff-cross-objector.
15. On consideration of contents of Will, I do not find any such
intention on the part of Girdhari Lal to vest entire property bearing No.4677
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJS-20-C-1990
9
in RSA-1795-1990
in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff-cross-objector. In fact in Will,
Girdhari Lal had duly described the entire property without there being any
ambiguity. He had left Property A and B as mentioned in site plan out of his
Will as it already stood gifted to appellant-defendant No. 1-Shakuntala Devi
vide registered gift deed dated 16.03.1959. Even while executing his Will
dated 12.03.1982, Girdhari Lal was clear that he is owner of Property C, D
and E as mentioned in site plan and accordingly has described property
mentioned as Property C in site plan (Ex.P-2) as Property at serial No.3 and
Property No. D and E mentioned in site plan as Property at serial No.4 in his
Will. Further reading of Will goes to show that right of maintenance was
given qua property C as mentioned in site plan. That the Will does not give
any right over property No.D and E in the site plan/Property No.4 mentioned
in Will. Therefore, reading of Will which was very basis of judgment and
decree dated 06.06.1990 clearly makes out that the intention of Girdhari Lal
was to create right of maintenance only qua property C/property No. 3
mentioned in Will. He has not given any rights qua maintenance of Bhagwan
Dai as regards to Property at serial No.4/Property No. D and E in the site
plan.
16. Therefore, the argument raised on behalf of respondent No.1-
plaintiff-cross-objector that he has become owner of entire property is
without any basis. In Will, only property at serial No.3/property mentioned
as C in site plan alone was given to Bhagwan Dai. Property D and E were
never entrusted to her for her maintenance and therefore Bhagwan Dai
cannot claim to be absolute owner of Property No. D and E by virtue of
limited estate created by way of Will. In fact, Will has been found to be valid
by both the learned Courts below and it has been held that as per Will, the
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

XOBJS-20-C-1990
10
in RSA-1795-1990
property which was not given to Bhagwan Dai towards her maintenance
would vest with appellant-defendant No.2-Varinder Kumar.
17. Therefore, in view of above discussion I do not find any error
with the findings of facts recorded by learned first Appellate Court vide
judgment and decree dated 06.06.1990, the same is upheld. Accordingly,
cross-objections preferred by respondent No.1-plaintiff-cross objector are
dismissed.
18.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of accordingly.

04.11.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL)
Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document