Allowed

Mohar Pal v. Sunehra and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Nov 2011RSA/1843/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a family property dispute regarding ancestral land, the High Court accepted a compromise settlement facilitated by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The appellant agreed to give a share of land to the respondents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and modification of the trial court order.

What did the court decide?

The Regular Second Appeal is disposed of based on the compromise; the trial court order is modified to effect the settlement terms.

Mohar Pal Vs Sunehra and Anr. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

R.S.A. No. 1843 of 2006 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A. No. 1843 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.11.2011

Mohar Pal

..Appellant

Versus

Smt. Sunehra and Another

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

RITU BAHRI, J.(ORAL)

¶15

The plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration and injunction which was decreed by the trial Court. A dispute arises between family members and plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Sunehra Devi, who is widow of Chandan Singh and Murti Devi daughter of Chandan Singh. Plaintiff Chandan Singh was real brother of respondent Mohar Pal and father of Murti Devi.The suit was decreed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 1/3^rd share in the Joint Hindu Family property out of which respondent No. 2 was daughter of the deceased. The defendant's case was that by a sale decree in civil suit titled as “Mohar Pal Vs. Bhulli” dated 11.8.1993 was based on family settlement and was legal and valid. The property being ancestral property of deceased Chandan Singh, husband of plaintiff No. 1, 1/3^rd share after the death of Chandan Singh plaintiffs has rights as per Indian Succession Act. The share of 1/3^rd was dissolved the plaintiffs from by way of succession. The defendants filed an appeal against

¶16

R.S.A. No. 1843 of 2006 (O&M)

¶17

¶18

the trial Court judgment which was also dismissed. The following judgment passed by trial Court on 29.04.2006 is as follows:

¶19

....”Chandan Singh (since deceased) husband of Smt. Sunhera plaintiff No. 1 and father of Smt. Murti Devi plaintiff No. 2 with Mohar Pal defendant No. 1 and Bhulli defendant No. 2 formed and constituted a joint Hindu family. Bhulli was the Manager and Karta of the joint Hindu family owned and possessed ancestral co-parcenery property namely (a) agricultural land bearing khewat No. 52, Khatoni No. 89, Rect. No. 48 Killa No. 6 (8-0), 13/192-0), 14(8-0), Rect. No. 68, Killa No. 4 (8-0), 7(8-0), 8/2 (11), 13(8-0), 14 (8-0), 15/2/1, (1-17), 16/1(4-10), 17(8-0), 18(8-0), 23/2(3-0), 24(8-0), 25/1 (4-10) total measuring 88 kanals 18 marlas and (b) agricultural land bearing Khewat No. 1, Khatoni No. 2, Rect. No. 45, Killa No. 14/2 (3-10), 15(8-0), 16(8-0), 17(73), 24 (7-9) total measuring 41 kanals 11 marlas to the extent of ½ share i.e. 20 kanals 16 marlas situate within the revenue estate of village Jawan Tehsil Ballabgarh District Faridabad (hereinafter called the suit property). Chandan Singh was having 1/3^rd share in the suit property. Chandan Singh son of Bhulli died about 20 years ago leaving behind Smt. Sunheri plaintiff No. 1 his widow and Smt. Murti Devi plaintiff No. 2 his daughter as the legal representatives. After the death of Chandan Singh his 1/3^rd share devolved by succession upon the plaintiffs and they became the owners in possession of 1/3^rd share in the suit property and thus are entitled to get themselves declared as owner in possession of 1/3^rd share of the suit property. Mohar Pal defendant No. 1 had

¶20

R.S.A. No. 1843 of 2006 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

wrongly, illegally and fraudulently obtained a collusive decree in his favour in respect of the suit land in a Civil Suit No. 488 of 1993 entitled Mohar Pal Versus Bhulli dated 11.8.1993 and under the garb of the impugned decree is now bent upon to usurp whole of the suit land. It is averred that the decree dated 11.8.1993 is wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs of their 1/3^rd share in the suit property. Bhulli defendant No. 2 could not even alienate his 1/3^rd share in the suit land effecting the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to treat the decree dated 11.8.1993 illegal, null and void and admit the plaintiffs to be the joint owners in possession with respect to 1/3^rd share of the suit property and to partition the suit property metes and bounds and also not to interfere in their peaceful possession have finally refused on 9.6.1994 giving cause of action to file the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the joint owners in possession of 1/3^rd share in the suit properties detailed and described in para No. 2(a) and 2 (b) of the plaint alongwith a decree of separate possession by way of partition of 1/3^rd share of plaintiffs in the suit properties and also for the decree for permanent injunction as a consequential relief restraining the defendants from usurping from raising construction over the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants alongwith costs.

¶23

Mohar Pal defendant No. 1 contested suit and averred that the parties belongs to Jat Community, one of the the major agricultural tribes of erstwhile Punjab including District

¶24

R.S.A. No. 1843 of 2006 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

Faridabad and follow the agricultural custom where the concept of Joint Hindu Family and co-parcenary property does not exist. The sons do not acquire interest in the property of their father by birth.Bhulli defendant No. 2 was the sole owner in possession of the suit land, non-ancestral property. It was denied that Chandan Singh acquired interest by birth and was the owner of 1/3^rd share of the sui property. The properties of paragraphs No. 2(a) and (b) were denied to be joint ancestral property. Bhulli defendant No. 2 was denied to be Karta and Manager of non-existent alleged joint family. It was also denied that Chandan Singh was co-parcenery joint Hindu family with 1/3^rd share in the suit property. It was asserted that the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 488 of 1993 entitled Mohar Pal Versus Bhulli dated 11.8.1993 was based on family settlement and was legal and valid. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs lack locus-standi, has no cause of action to maintain the suit and prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs”.

¶27

The defendants filed the present Regular Second Appeal and during the pendency of this appeal the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. As per the report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 7.7.2011 the matter has been amicably settled and the present appellant-defendant Mohar Pal has agreed to give 1/3^rd share of land situated close to of Rampur, Rajwaha land to the plaintiffrespondent as per the details in the compromise. The details of the land has been given in the compromise. The plaintiffs Sunhera Devi and Murti Devi have accepted this compromise and have agreed that they will not claim any

¶28

R.S.A. No. 1843 of 2006 (O&M)

¶29

¶30

other land/house/haveli etc. which has inherited to Mohar Pal from his parents and grandparents and is in his possession.

¶31

In pursuance to this compromise, all the cases pending in different courts would come to an end and deems to have been withdrawn/disposed of.

¶32

Learned counsel for the parties states that the compromise deed has been duly signed by the appellant-defendant and the plaintiffrespondents in the presence of Mr. Arun Kumar Tejpal, Mediator.

¶33

In view of the report of the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, this Court has no objection to accept the compromise which has been duly arrived at without any coercion between the parties.

¶34

In view of the compromise, this Regular Second Appeal is disposed of and the trial Court order dated 29.04.2006 is modified to the extent that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties.

¶35

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶36

November 08, 2011 Poonam (II)

Mohar Pal v. Sunehra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohar Pal v. Sunehra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murti Shri Radha Krishan Ji Maharaj Vs Prem Parkash

Poonam Kumari Vs Rajinder Kumar

Rajender & Ors. Vs Vasu Dev & Anr.

Jaswant Kaur Vs Babu Singh

Ram Parsad Vs Surinder Kumar

Vinay Kumar Vs Jawahar Lal