In a second appeal regarding a suit for title and partition, this court held that no substantial question of law arose and refused to interfere as the Lower Courts correctly found no evidence supported the defendants' claim of ownership through Sarbati.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 999 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: 29.2.2012.
Ram Rati & others
--Appellants
Versus
Ramesh L.R/son of Mangat Ram
--Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:Mr. B.S. Bairagi, Advocate for the appellants.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J
The defendants-appellants are in second appeal before this
Court.
Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants by pleading himself to be the son of Gokal, who in turn was one of the three sons of Budh Ram. Gokal had two sons namely Lekh Ram and Mangat Ram, i.e. plaintiff himself. Gokal was stated to have died on 4.11.1978. His elder son Lekh Ram also died leaving behind his widow Kodiha, who performed Karewa marriage with the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff pleaded that he became sole owner of 1/3rd share of the suit property as detailed in para 2 of the plaint. It was pleaded that since certain co-sharers were wanting to sell their shares as such plaintiff filed an application for partition before the court of Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Bahadurgarh and he thereupon came to know that one Sarbati claiming herself to be daughter of Gokal had got mutation no.1111 dated 24.8.1979 sanctioned in her favour after the death of Gokal. Upon making inquiry, it was found that one Raghbir Singh had got mutation no.2584 sanctioned in favour of all the
RSA No. 999 of 2012(O&M) -2-
defendants on 12.5.2005 as the Assistant Collector IInd Grade had not made the requisite inquiry regarding identification of the defendants. It was pleaded that Sarbati was not the daughter of Gokal and the second mutation bearing no.2584 sanctioned on 12.5.2005 in favour of defendants no.2 and 3, who were the alleged sons of such Sarbati is without any authority in law. It is under such circumstances that the suit had been filed for setting aside mutation no.1111 dated 24.8.1979 and mutation no.2584 dated 26.5.2005 and for declaring the plaintiff to be the owner in possession of 1/3rd share in respect to the suit property. The consequential relief restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property was also prayed for.
The suit was contested and the defendants took a stand that Gokal was survived by two sons namely Lekh Ram and Mangat Ram i.e. the plaintiff as also one daughter namely Sarbati. The plaintiff and the defendants, accordingly were owners to the extent of 1/6th share out of the share of Gokal. The mutation of inheritance in favour of Sarbati and still further in the name of the sons of deceased Sarbati had rightfully been sanctioned.
Upon the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following crucial issue amongst others:-
The Trial Court having heard respective counsel for the parties
and having scanned the evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held mutation no.1111 dated 24.8.1979 sanctioned in favour of Sarbati,
RSA No. 999 of 2012(O&M) -3-
subsequent revenue record i.e. Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 (Ex.P-1), mutation no.2584 dated 26.5.2005 (Ex.P-3) to be null and void and set aside the same. It was directed for such entries to be corrected and to be entered in the name of plaintiff and the defendants were also restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The defendants-appellants preferred a civil appeal and vide impugned judgement dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar the findings of the Trial Court have been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed.
I have heard Mr. B.S. Bairagi, learned counsel appearing for the defendants-appellants at length.
Both the courts below have returned a concurrent finding to the effect that no evidence either documentary evidence or oral has been led by the defendants-appellants to prove Sarbati to be the daughter of Gokal. No document on record in the nature of pedigree table of the forefathers of the plaintiff, wherein Sarbati would have been depicted as daughter of Gokal or for that matter any birth or death certificate of Sarbati had been produced. On the other hand, the plaintiff in order to prove that he was owner in possession of the suit property to the extent of 1/3rd share of his father Gokal apart from having appeared himself in the witness box as PW-3 also examined PW-1 Amar Singh, PW-2 Jagir Singh and PW-3 Jagbir Singh. Such witnesses were the residents of the village concerned i.e. Sarai Aurangabad. Their deposition was specific to the extent that the father of the plaintiff was Gokal, who had expired 27/28 years ago. Still further, it was deposed that there was no sister of Mangat Ram, plaintiff and that Mangat Ram and his son had been cultivating the suit property since long
RSA No. 999 of 2012(O&M)
-4-
and they had not seen anyone else cultivating the land and they have not seen any girl of the name of Sarbati.
Clearly the defendants-appellants are claiming and deriving the title to the suit property through Sarbati, Ram Rati, defendant-appellant no.1 being the daughter of Sarbati and Raghbir Singh and Malkhan Singh being the sons of deceased Sarbati, all residents of village Giraward, Tehsil & Distt. Rohtak. The onus to prove Sarbati to be the daughter of Gokal was upon the defendants-appellants. The First Appellate Court has clearly noticed that the defendants-appellants apart from not having led any evidence whatsoever in support of their claim had not even stepped into the witness box themselves. The First Appellate Court has taken note of the fact that even though, Sarbati was shown as daughter of Gokal in the impugned mutation and the Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 but such revenue record (Ex.P-1 to P-3) was clearly false and was as such liable to be corrected. Such falsity in the revenue record stood corroborated from the fact that Lek Ram deceased, who was admittedly the elder son of Gokal but his name did not appear in the mutation of inheritance (Ex.P-2). The name of Lekh Ram did not even appear in the Jamabandi (Ex.P-1) qua the suit land.
Even though, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent had been decreed by the Trial Court on 20.11.2007 but the appeal before the First Appellate Court had been preferred only in the year 2010 i.e. after a delay of about 988 days. Even though, learned counsel appearing for the defendantsappellants had attempted to attribute fault to the counsel representing such defendants-appellants before the Trial Court by stating that no information had been passed on as regards the passing of the impugned judgement and
RSA No. 999 of 2012(O&M) -5-
decree dated 20.11.2007 but even such stand was found to be misplaced. Even in this regard, it has been taken note of that in the execution proceedings initiated at the hands of the plaintiff-respondent, the defendants-appellants had duly appeared before the Trial Court and had even filed their objections through a different counsel namely Sh.Tak Ram Dalal, Advocate. Under such circumstances, the First Appellate Court had chosen not to condone an inordinate delay of 988 days in filing an appeal against the judgement and decree dated 20.11.2007 passed by the Trial Court.
In the light of the observations made above, it is not a fit case that would warrant interference with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below. The findings of fact are concurrent in nature and would be binding upon the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The present second appeal must fail as it does not raise any question of law much less a substantial question of law.
Appeal dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
29.2.2012. lucky
Whether to be reported? No.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Second Appellate Court can interfere with the concurrent finding of fact that no evidence was led to prove Sarbati was the daughter of Gokal?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Rati & others
Ramesh L.R
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
