Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2803 of 2002
Date of Decision: July 24, 2009
Ram Lal ...........Appellant
Versus
Lal Chand etc. ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
**
Sabina, J.
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that
notwithstanding the entries to the contrary in the record, the suit property
described in the head note is ancestral/coparcenary/Joint Hindu family
properties qua the plaintiff and suit for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from alienating the said properties to any body. The said suit
of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division) Abohar vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.2000. Aggrieved by
the same, plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the
Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated
5.3.2002. Hence, the present appeal .
The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional
District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:-
Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 2
” 2. Appellant filed suit by alleging that Hira Ram, the father of
appellant and respondent No.1 was karta of Joint Hindu Family
consisting of parties. Respondents No.2 to 4 are sons of
respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 is under care and custody of
respondent Nos. and latter has no interest adverse to the minor.
Respondent No.5 is son of appellant whereas respondent No.6 is
mother of appellant. Parties are governed by Hindu Law in
matters of succession and alienation. Joint Hindu Family
consisting of parties and headed by Hira Ram, as Karta, was
owning 25/26 acres of agricultural lands and residential house
detailed and described in the head note of plaint of suit. Suit
properties mentioned in items (a) to (e) of head note of plaint of
suit were purchased with the Joint Hindu Family funds and
income through sale deed dated 28.1.1981, 30.1.1981, 4.3.1983
and 12.4.1985 for consideration from Manphool, Bahadur Singh
and Puran Singh etc. Ever since purchase of the suit lands Joint
Hindu Family had been occupying and cultivating these properties
in their own rights without any objection or claim whatsoever
from respondent. After death of Hira Ram, on 6.8.1992, disputes
and differences arose qua inheritance for sharing the suit
properties and other Joint Hindu Family properties. Respondents
No. 1 to 4 in league with each other started denying nature of the
suit properties. On the basis of notional partition that took place
on death of Hira Ram, Hira Ram got 1/3rd share whereas appellant
as well as respondent No.1 got 1/3d share each in the suit
properties.Otherwise also on the basis of Will dated 12.4.1985,
Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 3suit properties devolved upon appellant and respondent No.1 in
equal share. Respondents have been repeatedly asked to admit
claim of appellant qua his share in the suit property,but to no
effect. Rather respondents started threatening to alienate suit
property and as such relief of permanent injunction also claimed
for protection of possession as well as qua alienation of the suit
properties.
3.Respondent No.6 Smt.Kasturi Devi filed written statement
where through claiming that respondents No. 1 to 4 purchased suit
properties with their own income after arranging money by
respondent No.1 from his brother in law and Commission agents.
Consideration amount regarding sale deeds referred above was
paid by respondent No.1, Lal Chand through Hira Ram at the time
of execution of the sale deed. Thus, suit properties are self
acquired properties of respondent No.1 to 4 and since then they
are coming in possession of the suit properties as owners and
mutation has also been sanctioned on the basis of the sale deeds in
their names. Suit in present form not maintainable, particularly
when material facts have been concealed. Appellant is employed
as Teacher and he is residing separately from his father Hira Ram
since long. Appellant had been residing in a separate house and
he has no concern with the ownership of the suit properties.
Appellant has no locus standi or cause of action. or Suit otherwise
barred by provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. as well as by rule
of estoppel due to act and conduct of appellant. Besides suit
being barred by law of limitation is not properly valued for
Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 4purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. Suit bad due to non-
joinder of necessary parties. Earlier civil suit for declaration filed
by appellant against respondents titled as Ram Lal versus Kasturi
Devi etc, was decided by court of Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Abohar and as such present suit being false, vexatious and
frivolous merits dismissal. There is no dispute regarding
ownership rights of the parties. However, it is denied that parties
to the suit constituted Joint Hindu Family headed by Hira Ram. It
is denied that Joint Hindu Family owned 25/26 acres of land.
Rather properties in question were purchased by respondents No.1
to 4 with funds arranged by respondent NO.1 as referred above.
As appellant was separated long ago by his father and brother and
as such suit properties are not joint Hindu Family properties.
Respondent Lal Chand purchased 4 ½ acres of land about 14
years ago by spending amount from his own pocket. Like-wise
respondent No.1 purchased 3 acres of land about ten years ago by
arranging money himself. Inspite of the fact that appellant was
residing separately from his father and brother, Hira Ram, the
father of the appellant got purchased 25 kanals 15 marlas of land
about 12 years ago in the name of his grand sons namely, Phoosa
Ram and Ranjit Ram in equal shares. This Ranjit Ram is son of
Ram Lal appellant. Appellant has got no concern with the
possession of the suit properties. Rather respondents are in
possession of the suit properties in their own rights and as such
suit prayed to be dismissed. After death of Hira Ram, mutation
earlier was sanctioned by Assistant Collector Iind Grade, Abohar
Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 5in favour of all the natural heirs of Hira Ram, but then the will
executed by Hira Ram was put forth, then mutation stood
sanctioned in favour of appellant as well as respondetn No.1.
Suit land was never purchased with Joint Hindu Family funds and
Income and as such it is neither the Joint Hindu Family and nor
coparcenary or ancestral property”
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed by the trial Court:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present
suit ?OPD
2. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC ?OPD
3. Whether the property in question is ancestral and coparcenary
and Joint Hindu Family Property qua the plaintiff?OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed
for?OPP
5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD
6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties?OPD
7. Relief”
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of
the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit.
Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the entries in the
revenue record were incorrect as the property in question had been
purchased in the names of defendants out of the Joint Hindu Family
property. Both the parties, in order to prove their case, led their respective
evidence. As per Exhibit P13, copy of jamabandi for the year 1986-87,
Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 6
Hira son of Pema Ram was in possession of land measuring 204 kanal 16
marla. However, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out
any evidence from the record which could show that the suit land was
inherited by Hira Ram from his ancestors. Even in the earlier jamabandies
placed on record, Hira Ram has been described in possession of the land as
tenant. In these circumstances, Courts below rightly came to conclusion
that the only logical conclusion that could be proved from the revenue
record on the file was that Hira Ram became owner of the land by
operation of law and thus, being an occupancy tenant had acquired
ownership rights. He could dispose of his personal property and income
accruing from the said property, in the manner, he liked. In these
circumstances, Hira Ram could purchase property in the name of any of his
son out of his personal income. Hira Ram had also executed a Will dated
12.4.1985 in favour of his son-appellant. On the basis of the said Will, the
appellant had filed a Civil Suit No. 912 of 2001 dated 15.3.1995 and the
said suit was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)vide judgment and
decree dated 19.8.1998. On the basis of the said Will, the appellant was
held to be owner in possession of the half share of the land measuring 204
kanal 16 marla. The said property in dispute was purchased in the name of
defendant Lal Chand, his sons Ram Sarup, Sahib Ram Phoosa Ram and
Ranjit Ram son of plaintiff-Ram Lal. The said sale deeds are dated
28.1.1981, 30.1.1981, 4.3.1983 and 12.4.1985. However, the said sale
deeds have been challenged by way of a suit filed in the year 1994 and,
thus, after the period of limitation. In these circumstances, the Courts
below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant on the ground
that it was time barred and moreover, the plaintiff had failed to establish
Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 7
that the land in dispute had been purchased out of Joint Hindu Family
property.
No substantial question of law arises in this case which
would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.
( Sabina )
Judge
July 24, 2009
arya