Dismissed

Shyam Singh v. Jit Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Apr 2014RSA/2380/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appellant sought permanent injunction against respondents withdrawing land acquisition compensation. The High Court rejected claims of joint family ownership and barred Civil Court jurisdiction over compensation apportionment, which falls under the Land Acquisition Act.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the appellant is not entitled to permanent injunction as Civil Court lacks jurisdiction over compensation apportionment.

Shyam Singh Vs Jit Singh and Others — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RSA No.2380 of 1990(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.2380 of 1990(O&M) Date of decision: 24.4.2014

¶5

Shyam Singh

¶6

......Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mehma Singh and others

¶9

......Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr. K.S Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellant(s).

¶13

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

¶14

This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgements and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents, from withdrawing the compensation amount from the Land Acquisition Collector has been dismissed.

¶15

As per the plaintiff, land as detailed in the suit is a coparcenary property of the plaintiff as well as the defendants and he had a share in the said property to the extent of 1/5th share. The said land was acquired by the Punjab State. A portion of the compensation money was wrongly paid to defendant No.1 on the basis of wrong entries. The said defendant No.1 had purchased a chunk of other land with the said money in village Khera in District Patiala in the names of defendant No.2 and his son Ranjodh Singh. Defendant No.1 has thus, ignored the rights of his three other sons, namely, plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 and 4. It was further

¶16

Saini Pushpinder 2014.05.01 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

RSA No.2380 of 1990(O&M)

¶18

¶19

averred that some other compensation money was still lying undistributed with the Land Acquisition Officer in which defendant No.1 has only 1/5th share whereas plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 and 4 have got 3/5th share. Defendant No.1 was making effort to make the entire compensation amount on the basis of wrong revenue entries and thus, necessity has arisen to file the instant suit.

¶20

All the defendants filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections to the effect that the Court has no jurisdiction for apportionment of compensation money and the controversy could be settled only by the Land Acquisition Collector under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶21

On merits, it was averred that plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 5 do not constitute a joint Hindu family with defendant No.1. It was further stated that defendant No.1 was got separated from his sons including the plaintiff about 30 years back. At that point of time, property was given to each one of them as per their share. Defendant No.1 kept the land of his share with himself. Since then all of them were in their separate cultivating possession. Even they were residing separately. It was admitted that defendant No.1 acquired some land by way of purchase with his own funds. It was further stated that the plaintiff had also sold one house exclusively and similarly, defendant No.4-Ajaib Singh had sold some property and these facts indicated that the Joint Hindu family of defendant No.1 and his sons had disintegrated long back by way of separation. It was admitted that property of defendant No.1 was acquired by the State of Punjab which was owned and possessed by him and it was he who was entitled to the compensation. Defendant No.1 had already received a part of it. It was denied that defendant No.1 was having 1/5th share in the

¶22

Saini Pushpinder 2014.05.01 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶23

RSA No.2380 of 1990(O&M)

¶24

¶25

property acquired. It was further added that the suit in the present form was not maintainable and the matter with regard to compensation has already been processed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India and only defendant No.1 was found to be entitled to the compensation amount and thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

¶26

The trial court framed the following issues from the pleadings

¶27

of the parties:

¶28

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP

¶29

2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

¶30

3. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD

¶31

4. Whether the property in question which was acquired by the State government was a joint in the family Coparcenary property, and if so its effect? OPP.

¶32

5. Relief."

¶33

After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial court under issue No.1 held that the appellant was not entitled to grant of permanent injunction. Under issues No.2 and 3, it was held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the suit was not maintainable. Issue No.4 was decided in favour of defendant No.1 holding that acquired property was his exclusive estate and thus, the suit was dismissed with special costs.

¶34

Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgement and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court which

¶35

Saini Pushpinder 2014.05.01 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶36

RSA No.2380 of 1990(O&M)

¶37

¶38

was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.9.1990 observing as under:

¶39

"The relief that the appellant sought through the suit cannot be granted to him in law because acquisition of land, determination of compensation and payment thereof and apportionment of compensation, disputes regarding title to compensation for sharers there in are all matters covered by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant has not placed on record the notifications acquiring the land, the collector's award, judgement of Civil Court in reference for enhancement and judgements in appeal passed by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The complete set of these documents would have cast light on the compensation amount which is lying with the collector regarding which the appellant seeks to restrain the respondents from recovering. The counsel for the appellant has not been able to give any reason why the appellant did not raise dispute regarding the payment of compensation of Jit Singh alone on the basis that the acquired land was coparcenary property of their joint family. The proper forum for deciding the dispute would have been a reference to the Civil Court on the basis of application moved by the appellant. This was

¶40

Saini Pushpinder 2014.05.01 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶41

RSA No.2380 of 1990(O&M)

¶42

¶43

indeed the only remedy available to the appellant which for reasons best known to him he decided not to seek. The present suit has been rightly found to be not maintainable and the appellant held to be not entitled to grant of permanent injunction. The court has been found lacking jurisdiction as well.

¶44

8. As regards the plea that the appellant together with his father and brothers constituted a joint Hindu Family and the property being coparcenary property, the statement of the appellant in cross examination is revealing because he has admitted that the brothers were separate from the father for the past 20 years and everybody had separate income and residence. The appellant received house from his father which he has sold. Jit Singh respondent No.1 was examined as a witness and he testified that he had separated his sons about 30 years back and had given them land. He was owner of 20 Killas of land which was inherited by him from his fore-fathers, this land was partitioned and each son was given four Killas. Jit Singh retained 4 Killas, being a 5th share. He pleaded that what he retained was property which he had purchased himself and the compensation amount was in respect of this self acquired property.

¶45

Saini Pushpinder 2014.05.01 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶46

RSA No.2380 of 1990(O&M)

¶47

¶48

There is no merit in the arguments that the family was joint when the appellant admitted that all the sons had been separated by the father. The appellant relied upon revenue records to show that property had been inherited by Jit Singh from his forefathers and therefore, constitute coparcenary property. In the present case we are only concerned with the parcel of land which had been acquired by the State and the compensation payable for this acquisition. The contention of Jit Singh respondent is that this was his self acquired property which must be accepted in the absence of details of the acquired land and in view of the fact that the parties had separated long time back. The trial court come to the correct conclusion that the acquired property was not coparcenary property at all”.

¶49

Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal submitting that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below are based upon surmises and conjectures. The evidence on record has not been appreciated in its right perspective. The Courts below have committed grave illegality while dismissing the suit and have not appreciated the concept of joint Hindu family property as joint Hindu family property of the appellant along with his father and other defendants stood proved from the pedigree table as reproduced in the grounds of appeal and thus, the findings of the Courts below being perverse, are unsustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.

¶50

Saini Pushpinder 2014.05.01 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶51

RSA No.2380 of 1990(O&M)

¶52

¶53

On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, counsel for the appellant has submitted that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:

¶54

“Whether the judgements and decrees of the Courts below suffer from perversity?”

¶55

However, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea as raised

¶56

on behalf of the appellant as admittedly in his cross examination, the appellant has admitted the fact of his separation from his father and other brothers for the past 20 years. It is further not in dispute that he received a house from his father which he has sold. It has also been established on record that Jit Singh-defendant No.1 was the owner of 20 Killas of land which was inherited by him from his forefathers and the said land was partitioned equally between him and his sons and thus, each son was given four Killas of land whereas Jit Singh also retained four Killas being 1/5th share. Moreover, the compensation amount was in respect of his self acquired property. There is nothing on record to prove that the compensation amount was for the property which was ancestral and in view thereof, the argument as raised before this court is liable to be rejected outrightly.

¶57

Not only this, the appellant in fact is seeking an apportionment of compensation of his alleged share in the suit property in the compensation amount. It could not be disputed before this court that determination of compensation and payment thereof and apportionment of compensation, disputes regarding title to compensation for shares are the matters covered by the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and jurisdiction of the Civil court is barred for such disputes.

¶58

No other point has been raised.

¶59

Saini Pushpinder 2014.05.01 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶60

RSA No.2380 of 1990(O&M)

¶61

¶62

In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that substantial questions of law, as raised, before this court are answered in the negative.

¶63

Resultantly, the appeal being without merit is dismissed.

¶64

April 24, 2014 ps

¶65

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶66

Saini Pushpinder 2014.05.01 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶67

RSA No.2380 of 1990(O&M)

¶68

¶69

Saini Pushpinder 2014.05.01 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Shyam Singh v. Jit Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Singh v. Jit Singh and Others

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

State of Punjab & Ors. Vs Harbans Parminder Singh & Ors.

Achhar Singh Vs Raghbir Singh and Ors.

Varinder Kumar and Another Vs Subhash Chander

State of Punjab etc. Vs Ram Singh

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kulbir Kaur & Ors. Vs Amrik Singh& Ors.