The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of an appeal against the dismissal of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction involving a will, property transfer, and alleged family settlement, concluding no interference was warranted.
The appeal was dismissed.
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.
vinod kumar 2014.06.24 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
RSA No.2926 of 2014 (O&M)
[ 1 ]
*********
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2926 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:30.05.2014
Kavita and others
...Appellants
Versus
Jai Kumar and others
...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. *****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J
The plaintiffs are in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which their suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
Dharma filed the present suit alleging that he had four daughters, who all are married, but unfortunately his wife had expired and his grandson Murari is looking after him, in whose favour he had bequeathed his entire moveable and immovable properties by way of Will dated 08.09.2003. He alleged that defendant Jai Kumar and his brothers approached him in November, 2006 for exchange of their plot, to which he agreed and for that purpose, Jai Kumar and his brothers instituted Civil Suit No.124 of 2006 titled as “Jai Kumar etc. vs. Dharma” and the same was decreed on 26.05.2007. He also alleged that the defendant, while playing fraud upon him and taking advantage of his illiteracy and simplicity, got
RSA No.2926 of 2014 (O&M) [ 2 ]
vinod kumar 2014.06.24 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
prepared another plaint of the suit for declaration in addition to the suit for exchange without his consent and got fixed both the cases on the same day, i.e. 24.03.2007, and got transferred half share of the plaintiff in his name without his knowledge and permission. In fact, the plaintiff had never agreed and permitted the defendant for transfer of his share in the name of the defendant vide consent decree in Civil Suit No.123 of 2006 because he had already executed a Will of his entire property in favour of his grandson for the last 15 years. As soon as the plaintiff came to know about the decree of the year 2006, when he obtained the copy of jamabandi from the revenue authorities, the present suit has been filed.
In reply, it has been admitted that prior to the impugned judgment and decree, plaintiff Dharma was the owner of the disputed property who had been residing with the defendant and suffered the impugned judgment and decree with his own consent and free will. It was denied that Murari had been performing all his duties towards the plaintiff and his daughters, rather the said Murari, in order to claim ownership of the disputed property, had instituted a suit against the defendant on 17.07.2008, which was withdrawn by him as no stay was granted to him and subsequent thereto, this suit has been filed at the instance of Murari. It was also alleged that the plaintiff suffered the decree in his favour by engaging Shri Jitender Lathar, Advocate, filing admitted written statement and by making statement in the Court. It was also alleged that there was a family settlement between the parties on the basis of which both the suits were filed and plaintiff Dharma appeared through his counsel in the Court, filed
RSA No.2926 of 2014 (O&M)
[ 3 ]
vinod kumar 2014.06.24 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
*********
his admitted written statement and further got recorded his statement.
No replication was filed by the plaintiff and on the pleadings of
the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-
Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case.
Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
The lower Appellate Court has discussed all aspects of the matter with regard to genuineness of the family settlement, non-registration of the decree and has also found that there was no fraud played upon Dharma as he had himself appeared before the Court and suffered the
RSA No.2926 of 2014 (O&M)
[ 4 ]
vinod kumar 2014.06.24 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
statement.
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that a fraud has been played upon Dharma, who was an illiterate person as he had been taken to the Court for the purpose of filing suit for exchange of the property in dispute but on the same day, another suit was filed with regard to the transfer of half share of his property in favour of the defendant in the name of family settlement.
However, it has been found by the Courts below that the written statement filed by Dharma was duly thumb marked by him and was filed through his counsel and he also appeared before the Court at the time when his statement was recorded in support of his written statement and even at that time he had thumb marked his statement which was read over and explained to him. There is no allegation by the plaintiff against his advocate Shri Jitender Lathar. The matter was settled between the parties before a Lok Adalat in which it has been specifically observed that the family settlement appeared to be bona fide.
In view thereof, in the absence of any particulars given as to how the plaintiff has been misled by the defendant for the purpose of suffering the decree in his favour, the present suit filed by him has rightly been dismissed by both the Courts below and in the absence of any question of law much-less substantial involved, no interference is called for.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
May 30, 2014 vinod*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction deserves interference.
Whether the suit by the plaintiffs was maintained in a family settlement.
Whether the plaintiffs challenged judgment and decree were illegal and null and void.
Kavita and others
Jai Kumar and others
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
