Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2990 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. Chandigarh Administration

2017-12-21

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, S.J.VAZIFDAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. S.J. Vazifdar, Chief Justice:- The petitioners in both the petitions seek the same relief. The petitions are therefore, disposed of by this common order and judgment. It will be convenient to refer to the parties and facts from CWP No.2602 of 2016. 2. One Mohan Singh was the owner of an immovable property in Sector 15, Chandigarh and respondents No.6 and 7 and one Surinder Singh are his children. Surinder Singh died and his estate is represented by respondents No.4 and 5 Buland Iqbal Singh and Mrs. Opinder Surinder Singh his son and widow respectively. CWP No.14116 of 2016 has been filed by respondent No.7 Bhupinder Kaur. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Estate Officer refusing his application for transfer of the ownership of the said property to the extent of a 24.6075% share therein in his name. The application was made on the basis of a registered Will dated 10.09.1984 executed by said Mohan Singh, who expired on 22.03.1992. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 3, the impugned order dated 27.11.2015 does not reject the application but has kept it pending till the parties furnish the certificate as required during the hearing. The impugned order states that the petitioner had not complied with the following requirements:- “1. Fresh Certificate from Regd. Architect declaring the 100% share as per area mentioned in the Will as the Will is floorwise which amount to fragmentation. 2. Acceptance affidavits from all the beneficiary of the Will regarding acceptance of share as per Certificate of the Regd. Architect.” 4. It is not necessary to deal with the facts in detail. The heirs of the said deceased do not dispute the Will. The only dispute is between respondents No.4 and 5 on the one hand and respondent No.6 on the other which does not affect this petition. This dispute does not pertain to the validity of the Will. Respondents No.4 and 5 contend that there was an oral agreement under which respondent No.6 had agreed to transfer his share to respondents No.4 and 5,who as mentioned earlier are the heirs of the said Surinder Singh. The Civil Suit filed by respondents No.4 and 5 to enforce the oral agreement is pending. 5. Respondents No.4 and 5 contend that there was an oral agreement under which respondent No.6 had agreed to transfer his share to respondents No.4 and 5,who as mentioned earlier are the heirs of the said Surinder Singh. The Civil Suit filed by respondents No.4 and 5 to enforce the oral agreement is pending. 5. Under the policy formulated by the official respondents, there is no impediment to the transfer of an undivided share as per the Will. This, however, is subject to an important restriction to which the private parties have no objection viz that fragmentation of the property is not permissible. The will proposed to bequeath identified portions of the property to the heirs. The official respondents are not bound to recognize transfers in such terms. The official respondents can only recognize the undivided share of the beneficiaries. It is for the beneficiaries to decide the percentage/extent of their undivided share in the property and to inform the official respondents of the same. 6. Irrespective of what the architect’s certificate may state, it is made clear that the transfer will be only of undivided shares in the property and nothing more. The petitioner and the respondents rightly agree and admit that the transfer of such a share will not constitute fragmentation of the property at any stage. They also agree and undertake that they will not contend in future that this order constitutes or results in the fragmentation of the property and it is also so ordered. If despite this order or for any reason, it is contended or found that this order or the transfers made by the official respondents amounts to or results in fragmentation or partition of the property by metes and bounds, this order shall stand revoked and the transfers, if any, shall be annulled without further orders of the Court. 7. The official respondents shall, therefore, deal with the application for transfer in accordance with and subject to the above observations. 8. Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel states that a decision will be taken by 31.03.2018. 9. The petitions are accordingly disposed of.