RSA No. 2280 of 2008 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
...
RSA No. 2280 of 2008
Date of decision: December 16,2008
Suraj Bhan and another ..Appellants.
Versus
Ankit and others ..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate
for the appellants.
...
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.
As per the averments made in the plaint, one Ram Kishan was the
owner of the agricultural land in dispute. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 to 6 are
sons and daughters of Ram Kishan. Plaintiffs came to know that wife of
defendant No.5 Ompatti in collusion with Ram Kishan fraudulently got a decree
dated 15.2.2003 passed in respect of ½ share of Ram Kishan in favour of
defendant Nos.2 and 3, i.e., Ankit and Vikas alias Ravi in Civil suit No.42 of 2002
titled as Ankit and another Versus Ram Kishan. The said judgment and decree is
illegal,null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and defendant
Nos.4 to 6 as the land in dispute is ancestral and the defendants Nos.2 and 3
are not members of the Joint Hindu Family. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 had no
pre-existing right in the property in dispute. Thus, impugned decree dated
15.2.2003 requires compulsory registration and the same could not confer any
right, title or interest upon defendant No.3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 refused to
admit the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land and they threatened to
alienate the same. Hence this suit.
Defendant No.1 filed separate written statement denying the
allegations. In the joint written statement of defendant Nos.2 to 5, it was
submitted that the decree suffered by Ram Kishan is binding upon the parties as
RSA No. 2280 of 2008 2
the same was passed rightly and legally.
The plaintiffs filed replication denying the averments made in the
written statement and further reiterating the contents of the plaint. From the
pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.2.2003
can be declared illegal, null and void as alleged, if so to what
effect? OPP
2. Relief.
The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. After
hearing the arguments, the trial court decided issue No.1 in favour of the
plaintiffs. In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed to the effect that the
decree in Civil Suit No.42 of 2002 dated 15.2.2003 titled as Ankit Versus Ram
Kishan is illegal, null and void and the defendants were restrained from
transferring the suit land in the garb of impugned decree.
Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial
Court, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge,
Sonepat vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.1.2008 held that the
decree dated 15.2.2003 does not require registration but the same is not binding
upon the rights of the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.4 and 5 in respect of 4/5th
share and is legal and valid only in respect of 1/5th share of Ram Kishan in the
suit land. Accordingly, the findings of the trial Court under issue No.1 were partly
set aside and the appeal was partly accepted. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff-
appellant Nos.1 and 2 stood decreed only to the effect that the judgment and
decree dated 15.2.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 42 of 2002 is illegal, null and
void qua 4/5th share in the suit land and the same is not binding on the rights of
the plaintiffs to that extent but the same is valid and binding in respect of 1/5th
share of Ram Kishan in the suit land. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 were
restrained from alienating more than 1/5th share in the suit land.
Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal
challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court.
RSA No. 2280 of 2008 3
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The plaintiffs have
challenged the decree dated 15.2.2003 suffered by their father Ram Kishan only
in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 on the ground that the suit land is ancestral
property and they have got right therein. The lower Appellate Court held that
Ram Kishan being one of the coparceners on 1/5th share in the suit land which
was ancestral property in his hand qua his sons and grand sons and he could
bequeath his share only, i.e., to the extent of 1/5th share upon the defendant
Nos.2 and 3 in the alleged family settlement. Learned counsel for the appellant
was unable to challenge this finding of the lower Appellate Court. In fact, it is the
pleaded case of the plaintiffs themselves that they along with defendant No.1
Ram Kishan and defendant Nos.4 to 6 constituted Joint Hindu Family
coparcenery and in fact, they are recognizing the fact that Ram Kishan had 1/5th
share in the disputed property in dispute.
Thus Ram Kishan was competent to suffer decree in favour of
defendant Nos.2 and 3 to that extent. No other point has been urged. Thus there
is no merit in this appeal.
No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Dismissed.
December 16, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
nk JUDGE