Dismissed

Bahadur Singh v. Ram Pyari and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jan 2011RSA/3385/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal regarding a partition suit, the High Court observed that a prior final judgment determining a will forged and dismissing a claim based on it operates as res judicata, barring the present suit.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal was dismissed.

What the court decided

Bahadur Singh Vs Ram Pyari and Others — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

404

¶2

RSANo385 of2011 m1a INTHE^HIGHCOURT OF^{PUNJABAND HARYANA} AT CHANDIGARH RSA^No385 of 2011 408M1 Date^ofdecisionl Io12012 m BahadarSingh r 0 0 Versus I C5 I Ram Pyariand others Z 1 C CORAM HONBLE^{MRJUSTICEJORASINGH} I Il Present Mr ajiv Joshi Advocatefor the appellant L Mr Rajput^Advocate for NoCaveator 4 00 JORA SINGH J emo this RegularSecond Z Bahadar ll against^the dated72011 renderedbythe Iearned AdditionalDistrict Jalandhar reversingthe and decree dated32009 passedby^{theIearnedAdditionalCivii} Judge Senlor DivisionlJalandhar inCivilSuit No80 of²⁰⁰⁷ Oledby^Ram Pyari Civil Suit No 280^{of2007wasinstitutedbyRamPyarion} 1652001 Krishan Lal Chaman Lal Bahadar and Saudagar all^sons of Iate Dhanna Ram residentof Village Usmanpul and DistrictJalandhar for declarationto the effect

¶3

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶4

Rani Anita 2012.11.29 14: 15 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

405

1 0 0 I 0 I c Z 54

I Z 10 a7 Z tl

RSA^No3850f2011

e2e

that^sheisthe joint^ownertothe sharein the Iandmeasuring31 kanals 9^marlas in Khata No and 47166khasraNoll313 19 14 46117 8Ol 1811 0e1212312 121²⁴ Ol^5112113 221115 61 6112513 121 171312 121⁹¹¹⁴¹¹ 161^and412 641^situatedin village^{Usmanpurand mutationNo1209} sanctioned^onthebasis ofWill dated21988 alleged^{tobe executed} by Ram is null and void and and decree dated 291995^{passedin Civil Suit No471of1994 titledas} Knshan Lal vs ChamanLal and is null and void with relief of for restrainingthe defendantsfrom alienatingthe share^{of the} No 1^or in any manner changingthe nature^{of the} suitIand

¶12

¶13

of Nol is that DhannaRam was the^owner in of the propenyin dispute PlaintiHe No l beingthe of Dhanna Ram is the owner to the^extent of 115^{share butthe} defendants^{inorder to} grabthe filed^one Civil Suit No471 of¹⁹⁹⁴ titled^as lOishan Lal^vs Lal and others with the that theyare the owners to theextent of 114 share each byvirtueof Wiil dated21 988allegedto have^{been executed} by^{Dhanna Ram} but^{the said suitwasdismissed} by the Court vide and decree dated 291995 by the Wi Krishan Lal^was declared owner to the extent of 115 share of the in dispute Againstthe judgmentand decreedated291995 no appealbythe defendantsbut the defendantsagainOledsuit without the Nolas party^{titled as} KrishanLal

¶14

vshaman and others for

¶15

by^wayof paMitionof

¶16

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

theRani Anita2012.11.29 14: 15True Scanned^{Iandtothe extent of114share each} When the Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

406

1 r 0 0 I 0 I

00 VAVO Z Oa

RSA N33850f2011

e3e

No l came to know about the pendencyof the suit then she moved an under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on 231999 Piaintiffe respondentNo^1was impleadedas partyvideorderdated 10111999 but when theevidencewas beingrecordedthen suit was gotdlsmlssed as withdrawnon 1432001 Nol came to know 1 after that Ole throughher counsel that defendantsgot r mutation sanctioned^on the basis of forgedand fabricatedWill dated 0 0 21988 on 1521994 Nol had contestedthe I mutationbut she was told that she has been as owner but 0 when I she obtainedthe copy of jamabandithen her name was found mlssing The mutationsanctioned^on the basis of the Will is againstthe Z facts Iaw and record DhannaRam had not executed any Will In view 2 1 of the judgmentand decreedated 291 995 the mutationhas become 11 I 1 redundant Co Upon^{notice defendantsNo defendantsNoNo} 2^and 4^didnotturn up^to

¶24

Upon^{notice defendantsNo defendantsNoNo} 2^and 4^didnotturn up^to contest the claim of the Nol and against^ex Parte Defendant^No 3 BahadarSinglopellantOled^the writtenstatementand contested the suit interalia^on theallegationthat suit is timebarred Suithas not beenproperlyvaluedfor thepurposeof Courtfee and jurisdictionSuit is bad for misjoinderand of necessaryparties^andisnot maintainable^inview of Order 7 Rule 1Ol CPC On merits allegationof the that Dhanna Ram^was the^owner In possessionof the propertyin disputeAfterthe death of Dhanna Ram defendantshave becomethe owners in equal share in view of the Will dated 21 988 On the basis of Will mutation Nol 209 was rightlysanctioned No l contested JOYTI RANI the mutation NoRani Anita2012.11.29 14: 15 1209 but againstmutationorder no appealwas Oled 2016.03.28 16:01 True Scanned I attest to the accuracy and Copy of theOriginal integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

¶25

407

¶26

¶27

1 CC 0 40 I t5 I Z Ct Z CQ W3 Z ll

¶28

RSA No385 of2011

¶29

a4e

¶30

by^the No 1 Presentsuit^was filedin collusionwith KrishanLal Krishan Lal filed suit for separate by in collusion withthe present No l in is Iand and the same cannot be by^the Civil^Court After contest mutationwas rightlysanctionedon thebasis of^Willdated 21 988 Propertyin disputeis in the of the defendantsas owners

¶31

to the writtenstatementof defendantNoNas filedbydenying^{allthefactsmade therein} From the pleadingsof^the partiesfollowingissues^were framedl

¶32

1 lNhether^the plaintiffis entitledto declaration as prayedfor 20PP

¶33

2 Whether the plaintiff^IS entitled to joint and injunction^as

¶34

prayed^for OPP

¶35

3 Whetherthe suit is not maintainable2OPD

¶36

4 INhetherthe suit is time barred7OPD

¶37

5 lNhether the plaintiffis estoppedby her^own

¶38

act and conduct to file the presentsuit7OPD

¶39

6 Whetherthe suit is bad for and

¶40

of the necessaryparties2OPD

¶41

Additional Issue

¶42

1 Al Whether deceasedeDhannaRam has executed

¶43

Will dated 21 988 in his sound mindin favour

¶44

of defendants2OPD

¶45

7 Relief

¶46

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

Rani Anita 2012.11.29 14: 15 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

408

1 C 0 0 I t5 Z m

I 4 0 00 em Z ll

RSANo385of2011

e5m

Evidence was Iedby both the partiesand after going the evidence on file suit of the Nol was dismissedbythe Iower Court but judgmentof the Iower Court was set asideby^the Iearned^Ist AppellateCourt

¶56

have heard Iearned counsel for the appellantIearned counsel^for respondentNo 1Caveator and have gone through theevidence^on Ole

¶57

Learned^{counsei for the} appellantargued^{that Dhanna} Ram was theowner in possessionof^the propertyin and N 2^to 4 are the sons of Dhanna Ram whereas No 1^isthe daughterof^DhannaRam Dhanna Ram had executed^Willdated 231^{988 infavour} of^hissonsn the basis of this Will mutation Nol 209 was sanctioned^on 152199l Ex Del is the copy^{ofthemutation} Krishan Lal OledCivil Suit No 471 of 1994 but the same was dismissed^on 291995 Appellantwas defendant in that suit so he had no power to file appealagainstthe judgmentand decree dated 291 995 Krishan Lal filed another suit for separate by^way of partitionof^{the Iandin} dispute^without Ram PiariespondentNol eCaveatoras one ofthe defendant Inthe second suit Oled by Krishan Lal Ram Piari moved^an applicationunder Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the same was allowed vide order dated 101 1 999 but when the evidence^was going^on then suit for partition was got dismissed as withdrawn on 1432001 On the basis of Will mutationNo 1209 was entered Ram Piari appearedthroughcounsei Learned counsel for Ram Nol made statement on

¶58

201 994 that mutation be sanctioned^on the basis of

¶59

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

Rani Anita Will2012.11.29 14: 15Order of mutation was True Scanned not challenged Suit of the plaintif6 Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

409

1 r 0 0 I 0 Ct Z

1 1

C0 Z Cll W2 Z ll

RSANoe33850f2011

e6e

No 1^is barred by^res Argued^that foilowing 1

¶68

of^Iaw arises^{in the} presentappeall

¶69

al Whether the suitof the was barredbyIimitation7

¶70

bl Whether the principleof res judicatawouldbe

¶71

to the colefendants in a suit where the plaintiffand the defendant were in collusion and playeda fraud upon another party7

¶72

cl Whether^an act of the pleaderbinds the party and whether the partycan disown the same

¶73

Learned^{counseiforthe} appellant^has placedrelianceuponAlR¹⁹⁹⁵ Supreme^Court 1205 Mahboob Sahab vsyed Ismall and

¶74

othet

¶75

Learnedcounsel for contested respondentNol eCaveator argued^that no doubt Dhanna Ram was the owner in possessionof the Iand in disputebearingdifferent khasra numbers but Will dated 23988 was not executed by Dhanna Ram Will dated 2 1988 alleged^to have been executed by Dhanna Ram IS forgedand fabricated Civil Suit No 471 of 1994 was institutedbyKrishanLal for declaration and permanent on the basis of Will dated 21988 No 2 to 4 admitted that Will dated 231 988 was executed by Dhanna Ram in favour of the plaintiffie KrishanLal and contestingdefendants Suit was dismissed on 2951^995but against^the dated 291 995 there^IS no appealby anybody^{OnthebasisofWilldated 21988} mutation No1209 was

¶76

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶77

Rani Anita 2012.11.29 14: 15 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

¶78

410

¶79

¶80

1 C 0 0 I t5 I Z W CC I Z CO Z ll

¶81

RSA No3850f2011

¶82

a7e

¶83

sanctioned Ram No 1 Caveator appeared

¶84

counsel and her counsel made a statement to the eHectthat on the basis of Will dated21988 no if themutationis sanclloned SO at this stageBahadarSinghcannot arguethat Will dated21 988 was executed byDhannaRam SuitfiledbyRam Piari is not barredby the principieof^res judicata Reliance was placedupon 1il2008 21 RCR 1Civill936 Dadu DayaluMahasabha vs Mahand Ram Niwas and another 1iil²⁰⁰⁹ RCR ivill⁶⁹⁶ GangaiVinayagar Temple^andothers vsleenakshi Ammal and other liiil²⁰⁰⁹ 15 RCR ICivill767 ArjunSinghe Bachan Singh and 11v12010121 Civil Court Cases⁷²³ SC Chittoor Chegaiahad^otherse Pedda JeeyangarMutt and another

¶85

Dhanna

¶86

Ram was owner in possessionof the propertyin disputefullydescribedin the headingof the plaintpresented by^RamPiar This fact is aiso an admitted one that Ram Piari is the of Dhanna^Ram whereas Chaman Lal Bahadar Singhe appellant^{Krishan Laland} Singh^arethesons of Dhanna Ram On the basis of Will dated 21 988 mutationNo1209 was sanctionedon 152 1994 KrishanLal also Oled one suit for partitlon without Ram Piari Ram Piari moved an applicationunder Order1 Rule orderdated 101999 When the suit was pendingfor evidencethen the same was dismissedas withdrawn^on 1432001

¶87

Allegationof^the appellant^ISthat DhannaRam had rightly executed the Will dated 31 988^andon the basis of Will mutationNo

¶88

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶89

Rani Anita 2012.11.29 14: 15 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

411

1 r 0 0 I 0 Z Z C 4

L Z OO vmo Z Il

RSA No385of2011

a8a

thatunegisteredWill is not genuineone In view of the and decree^dated 291 995 passedin Civil Suit No 471 of 1994 Oledby KrishanLal mutationNo 1209is withoutany vaiuebecause mutationconfers^no titie

¶97

Civil suit No71 of 1994 was instituted by KrishanLal against^hisbrotheo namely^{Chaman Lal} Bahadur Singh Singh and sister Ram Piari Suit^was for declaration and on the allegationthat Dhanna Ram had rightlyexecutedWill dated231 988 in favourof his four sons On the basis of Will all the sons of Dhanna Ram^are the^owners to the extent of 114 share each Chaman LaI Bahadar Singhand SaudagarSinghsons of Dhanna Ram as defendant No 1 to 3 filed jointwrittenstatementwith the that Dhanna Ram^was the^owner of^{theIand in} dispute Will^dated 21988 was rightlyexecutedby Dhanna Ram in favour of his four sons excludinghis daughterRam Piari From the of^the parties^{relevant issues No} 1^and 2^{framed are} as under

¶98

1 Whether Dhanna Ram executed a valid Will dated 21 988 in favour of the plaintiffand defendantsNol to 37 OPP 2 If issue No 1 is provedwhetherthe plaintiffi^IS entitled^to114share7 OPP

¶99

Evidence was Iead by both the partiesand after going

¶100

through^{the evidenceonfile} Issues Nol and 2 were decided against the plaintiffKrishan Lall It was held by the Court that Will dated 21988 was not provecl Krishan Lal is not entitledto 114 share Ill

¶101

the propertyowned by Dhanna Ram meaningtherebyall the Iegalheirs

¶102

JOYTI RANI Rani Anita 2016.03.28 16:01 of 2012.11.29 14: 15True ScannedDhannaRam eour sons and^one daughterare the owners of^the I attest to the accuracy and Copy of theOriginal integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

412

1 0 0 I C I c Z

C0 Z c CQ r wmo Z Oa

RSA No385 of 2011

m9m

Iandⁱⁿ dispute^{tothe extent} of^{115share each}

¶110

¶111

In this Civil Suit No471 of 1⁹⁹⁴ allegationof Krishan Lal Chaman LaI BahadarSinghand was that Wlllldated 21988 was executedbyDhanna Ram but Will was not acceptedby the Court Against^the judgment^{anddecreedated291} 995 no appeal^{wasfiledeither} by^KrishanLalor his three brothers namely ChamanLal Bahadar Singhand SaudagarSingh On the basisof the said Will mutation was entered and sanctioned on 152 1994 Allegationof^the appellant^is that^before the revenueauthoritiesRam Piari appearedthroughcounsel and Iearned counsel for Ram Piari made^a statement^on 201 1994 that he has^no objectionif mutation^IS sanctioned in view of Will dated 21 988 but in view of the judgmentand decree dated 291995 passed^{inCivilSuitNo471} of 1994 filed by Krishan Lal mutation NO 1209 dated 1521994 IS without any value and confers no title Evidence^on Ole shows that Mi SC Nanda was the counsel of Ram Piari and one of the sons of Dhanna RamNill was requiredto be attested at Ieastbytwo witnesses and one of the witness is requiredto be producedin Coun In case the mutationwas sanctioned in view of the statementof Mr SC Nanda Advocate who was Ram Piari and one son of Dhanna Ram them mutationis without any value in view of the judgmentdated 291 995 passedin Civil Suit No 471 of 1994 In a suit filed by Ram Piari relevant issues N0 2^and1 are reproducedas under

¶112

n Whether the plaintiffis entitledto declaration as prayedfor 20PP

¶113

Rani Anita 2012.11.29 14: 15 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

¶114

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 2 Whether the plaintiff^IS entitled to joint I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶115

413

¶116

Itll

¶117

1m 0 0 I t5 I Z m 1 CrI

00 awo Z

RSA No385of2011

40m

and as prayedfor7 OPP

¶123

Additional Issue

¶124

1Al^{Whether deceased4OhannaRam hasexecuted}

¶125

Will dated 31^{988 inhissound} mindⁱⁿ favour of defendants2OPD

¶126

After evidence Iead by both the partiesIearnedtrial Court opined^{thatWilldated} 21 988^was rightlyexecutedbyDhannaRam SO Ram^{Piari isnot theownerto the extentof 115share}

¶127

In Civil Suit No 471 of 1994 filed Krishan Lal Chaman Lal

¶128

¶129

Singh^Bahadar SingIopellant^{andRamPiariwere} the defendantsbut in Suit No 280 of 2007 filed byRam Piari KrishanLal ChamanLaI Bahadar Singhand SaudagarSinghwerethe defendants tt1 that means partiesare the same in Civil Suit No 471 of 1994and also in the presentsuit No 280 of 2007 Oled by Ram Piari which was dismissed by the trial Court When disputewas the of the Will then in the second suitOledbyRam Piari Coun cannotopinethat Will is genuineone Bahadar Singhwhile appearing as witness admitted that second suit for partitionwas institutedby Krishan LaI He had appearedthroughcounsel Ram Piari was not a party^but on the applicationunder Order 1 Rule 10 CPC dated 2381 999 she was impleadedas one of the defendant When the case was pendingfor evidence then the same was got dismissed and withdrawnbyKrishan Lal On the basis ofWill dated 21988 mutation No1209 was sanctioned^on 1521994 but in Civil SuitNo11 of 1994 decided^on 2551995 Will dated 21988 was rejecte AftertheWill

¶130

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶131

Rani Anita 2012.11.29 14: 15 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

414

W C 0 0 t5 I

00 e mwo Z l1

e11 Il

¶137

RSA N 3385of2011

¶138

wasrejectedthen mutationNo1209 has no value Findingof the Civil Court in Civil Suit No 471 of 1994 qua of the Will as res judicatain the suitfiled byRam Piari

¶139

¶140

InArjunSinghs^case pral^{itwasheld that Ifoneof the} ISsue^IS decidedagainstthe defendantbut the suit of the plaintiffis dismissed^andno appeal^isfiled by^the defendant^to challenge^that issuethoughright^to appealis^{availablewhether} Ondingon the declded ISSue againstthe defendant would operateas res judicata Issue deciding^title of^the property^{isasubstantialissueandanydecisionon} that issue in an earlier between the same parliesor partiesof their would attract the provisionsof Section 11 ofCPC

¶141

¶142

¶143

No authoritywas cited by the Iearnedcounsel for the appellantthat once the Civil Court held that Will dated 21988 alleged to be executed byDhanna Ram is not genuinedocument thenmutalion sanctionedearlier

¶144

to the decision on the basis of the same Will carrles

¶145

value and on the basis of mutationsons are the owners to the extent of 114 shareeacl When clear cut Ondingof the CiviICourt that^thesons are not the^owners to the extent of 114 share in fact sons and daughterare the owners to the extent of 115 share each in the propertyof Dhanna Ram

¶146

In Gangai VinayagarTempleand others case 1supral Honble SupremeCourt held that Ondinggivenby Court having

¶147

Finding^{becamefinalandwill} operate^as res judicata between the same partieseven if findingwas not correct or erroneous

¶148

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶149

Rani Anita 2012.11.29 14: 15 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

415

1 0 0 I 0

1 I Z CO m7 Z Il

RSA Noe 3385 of 2011

42n

or reasoningwas weak or findingwas unnecessary

¶157

In Chlttoor Chegaiahand others case Isupralit was held

¶158

thatRes is barred from an Issuewhlchhas alreadybeen decidedpreviouslyby^{any Court of Iaw}

¶159

In Dadu DayaluMahasabhas case supral^Honble Court held that res judicatadebars^a Court from its to determine the Iis if it has attainedOnalitybetweenthe partieswhereasthe doctrineof estoppelis invoked againstthe party If such an issue is decided againsthim he would be estoppedfrom raisingthe same in the IatterproceedingThe doctrine of res judicata creates a differentkindof estoppelviz Estoppelbyaccord

¶160

In the presentcase ciear cut allegationof Ram Piari that earlierCivil Suit N 471 of 1994 was institutedby Krishan Lal and in that suit Will dated 2 1988 was not acceptedand the same was dismissed vide judgmentdated 291 995 She was declaredowner to the extent of 115 share of the Iand in disputelNhen no appealwas filed againstthe judgmentand decree dated 291 995 but again Krishan Lal filed suit for separatepossessionbyway of partitionon the

¶161

that he is the^owner to the extentof 114 share^on the basisof Will dated 21 988 without Ram Piari as defendant but the same was dismissedwithdrawnvide order dated 1132001 Case of the No 2 to 4 is that mutationNo 1209was contestedand against^{rnutationorder} no appeal by Ram NolICaveator

¶162

In view of all discussed above am of the opinionthat In

¶163

Vlew

¶164

of^{thedecisioninCivilSuitNo471} of^{1994 Oled} by^KrishanLal

¶165

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶166

Rani Anita 2012.11.29 14: 15 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

416

1 0 0

0 I r Z

r I C1 Z m

wwo Z tl

RSA No385 of²⁰¹¹

Civil Suit No 280 of 2007 filed by Ram Piari^was not barred by Iimitation SecondlyIn view of decisionon issues No 1 and 2 in suit No 471 of 1994 decision qua Will dated 31 988 operatoesas res judicata

¶175

Earlierjudgmentamongst^the partiesquathe of the Will bind the partiesⁱⁿ the suit and statementof the counsel for contested respondentNo 1 that mutationbe sanctionedon thebasisof Will is withoutany value because Will is requiredto be attested bytwo witnessesand one of the witness IS to be producl Court to prove the Wil When the^same counsel on behalfof two pailies one was lhe Will and second was the Will then the partyis not boundbythe statementof the counsel

¶176

No other substantialquestionof Iawis involved

¶177

For the reasons recorded above RegularSecond Appeal meridismissed r

¶178

Januaryrishu 10²⁰¹¹ 1 1 JUDGE

¶179

1e
C e
1
r
lI 1
MY 44
4
Sl Rani Anita
2012.11.29 14: 15
True Scanned
Copy of the
Original
PHHC,
Chandigarh

¶180

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bahadur Singh v. Ram Pyari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Bahadur Singh v. Ram Pyari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswant Singh Vs Naveen etc.

Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Pb.

Gursewak Singh Vs Stateof Pb.

Vijay Kumar Alias Kimti Lal Vs Pb State

Baltej Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sohan Lal and Anr. Vs Shanti Devi and Anr.