Dismissed

Het Ram v. Murari Lal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Feb 2012RSA/4974/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding partition suit, the High Court upheld lower courts' decree affirming equal shares of suit property between brothers. Rejecting the appellant's reliance on an unproven family settlement and irregular mutation, the Court held that findings of fact were binding and no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

The civil appeal filed by the defendant-appellant against the decree for possession by way of partition was dismissed.

Het Ram Vs Murari Lal and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA No. 4974 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.2.2012.

Het Ram

--Appellant

Versus

Murari Lal & others

--Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶9

Present:Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

¶11

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J

¶12

The defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

¶13

Briefly noticed that the plaintiff filed a suit for decree for possession by way of partition stating that the plaintiff Nathi (since deceased) and the defendant are co-sharers in possession of suit land measuring 5 marlas situated within the abadi of village Daghot, Tehsil Hodal, Distt. Faridabad. It was pleaded that the suit land has a boundary wall and has a temporary construction raised thereupon. Since the defendant has started proclaiming himself to be the absolute owner of the suit property and has threatened to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, accordingly, the suit had been filed. Upon notice, defendant filed written statement setting up a plea that he is the exclusive owner and in possession of the suit property. Defendant claimed to have constructed a residential house 22/23 years back and in respect of which he had been paying the Chulha Tax and had also got an electric connection. Defendant stated that the plaintiff had been allotted plot no.641 of 8 marlas during consolidation in the village and which he had sold away to one Sati Ram son of Ramji Lal and as such the plaintiff had no right or title in the suit

¶14

RSA No. 4974 of 2009 (O&M)

¶15

-2-

¶16

property.

¶17

On appreciation of evidence led on record and after hearing respective counsel for the parties, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and he was held to have ½ share in the suit property. Aggrieved of the same the defendant-appellant preferred a civil appeal and vide judgement dated 11.9.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridabad the findings of the Trial Court have been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed.

¶18

I have heard Mr. B.S. Tewatia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length.

¶19

It was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the appellant that two plots had been allotted to the family, one plot having been allotted in the name of the father namely Jassu and the other plot had been allotted in the name of the plaintiff-respondent. Counsel would contend that in terms of a family settlement the plot in dispute had been given to the defendant-appellant about 22/23 years back during the life time of the father of the parties. Counsel would further contend that even though, the fact of family settlement had not been got incorporated in the revenue record on account of the close relationship between the parties, they being real brothers but the plot in dispute had been transferred in the name of the defendant-appellant vide mutation (Ex.P-6) in the year 1992 itself and no objection has been raised by the plaintiff-respondent. As such, it was argued that the findings of the courts below are based on a misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence.

¶20

Ex.P-1 is the jamabandi in which the father of the parties Jassu has been recorded as owner in possession of the suit property. Jassu

¶21

RSA No. 4974 of 2009 (O&M)

¶22

-3-

¶23

admittedly died on 18.4.1962. Upon his death both the sons i.e. the appellant-defendant and plaintiff-respondent inherited the suit property in equal share. Undoubtedly, the mutation (Ex.P-6) would reflect that the plot in dispute had been mutated only in the name of defendant-appellant as the mutation had been entered into only on the basis of inheritance. Accordingly, the courts below have held such mutation to be illegal. The courts below have even noticed that the reliance placed upon by the defendant-appellant upon order (Ex.DX/3) passed under Section 7 of the Village Common Lands Act was wholly misconceived as such an order was based upon an application filed by one Nathi Ram son of Chandi Ram, whereas the plaintiff-respondent was Nathi son of Jassu.

¶24

The entire plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant is on a family settlement allegedly entered into in terms of which the plot in dispute had been given to the appellant-defendant 22/23 years back i.e. during the life time of their father Jassu. Apart from an oral plea to such fact no evidence whatsoever has been led to prove any such family settlement. Such alleged family settlement does not reflect in any revenue record. The concurrent findings of the courts below to hold both the sons i.e. the defendant-appellant as also the plaintiff-respondent Nathi (since deceased) to be owners of the suit property in ½ share each, does not warrant any interference by this Court. Such findings of fact are binding on the High Court.

¶25

The present appeal does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law.

¶26

Appeal dismissed.

¶27

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶28

14.2.2012.

¶29

lucky

¶30

Whether to be reported? No.

Het Ram v. Murari Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Het Ram v. Murari Lal and Ors.

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

Sardara Singh Vs Ravinder Singh

Ram Dev Vs Municipal Corporation Bathinda and Ors.

Palwinder Singh Vs Jit Singh and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs Surinder Pal and Anr.

Rambir Vs Mamta

Om Parkash Vs Dharambir and Others