The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal against decrees in a suit for declaration. The court upheld lower courts' findings that the suit property was not ancestral, noting the appellant failed to plead pedigree tables or prove legal necessity for the family patriarch's sale.
The regular second appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
1
RSA No. 406 of 2014 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.406 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision 24.01.2014
Monu
....Appellant
Versus
Suman and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
*******
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.
Plaintiff is in appeal, against the concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below, in his suit for declaration.
Briefly put, facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant filed suit for declaration with permanent injunction alleging that constructed house measuring 64 square yards 7 inches, marked by letters ABCD was joint Hindu undivided coparcenary property of plaintiff and defendant No.2. He further pleaded that sale deed number 698 dated 21.6.2002 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No.1 was without legal necessity and subsequent sale
Kumar Amit deed No. 1441 dated 8.7.2003 executed by defendant No.1 in favour 2014.03.07 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 406 of 2014 (O&M)
2
of defendant No.1-A was also null and void. It was further pleaded case of the plaintiff that defendant No.2-Hawa Singh and the plaintiff were members of Hindu Undivided Family. The house in question was joint family property. Since defendant No.2-Hawa Singh sold the suit property without any legal necessity, sale deed No. 698 dated 21.6.2002 was illegal, null and void. It was averred by the plaintiff that once the earlier sale deed dated 21.6.2002 was illegal, subsequent sale deed dated 1441 dated 8.7.2003 was also illegal and not binding on the rights of the parties.
Having been served in the suit, defendants appeared and filed their separate written statements controverting the allegations levelled by the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 took the preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability etc. On merits, it was pleaded that house in question was not ancestral property. Plaint was based on false and concocted story. Defendant-Hawa Singh sold the suit property for his legal necessity as he was to perform the marriage of his daughter-Murti. Defendant No.1-A also raised the similar objections to the plaint by way of his separate written statement. He claimed himself to be a bonafide purchaser. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
On completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:-
2. Whether the impugned sale deed No. 698 dated 21.6.2002 executed by Hawa Singh in favour of
Kumar Amit 2014.03.07 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 406 of 2014 (O&M)
3
defendant No.1 Suman Devi is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and performa defendants, without legal necessity?OPP. 3. If issue No.1 and 2 are proved, whether the another sale deed No. 1441 dated 8.7.2003 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 is also illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and performa defendants? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP.
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation?OPP
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD
9.Whether the suit is not maintainable because plaintiff has not paid for consequential relief of possession?OPD
10. Relief”
With a view to prove their respective stands taken, both the
parties led their documentary and oral evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record,
learned trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to Kumar Amit 2014.03.07 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 406 of 2014 (O&M)
4
prove his case. Accordingly, suit was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.1.2011. Plaintiff filed his first appeal which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide his impugned judgment dated 21.5.2013. Hence this second appeal at the instance of plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was sufficient evidence brought on record so as to prove his case, but the learned courts below failed to appreciate the true facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence brought on record, because of which both the impugned judgments and decrees were liable to be set aside. He further submits that suit property was ancestral property. He next contended that defendant-Hawa Singh was not competent to suffer the sale deed Ex.P3 dated 21.6.2000. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below, by allowing the present appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the case, coupled with the fact that no substantial question of law is involved, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short), for the following more than on reasons.
It is a matter of record and not in dispute that defendant
No.2-Hawa Singh inherited the suit property and became owner in Kumar Amit 2014.03.07 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 406 of 2014 (O&M)
5
possession thereof. Execution of the sale deed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 vide Ex.P3 and the subsequent execution of sale deed Ex.P4 dated 8.7.2003 by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.1-A were disputed by the plaintiff, on the sole ground that his father-Hawa Singh had no right to sell the ancestral property without legal necessity. However, plaintiff has failed in his pleadings to take specific averments giving pedigree table of the family, so as to establish that suit property was ancestral in the hands of Hawa Singh-defendant No.2. In the absence of the relevant pleadings and also the cogent evidence, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that plaintiff-appellant had proved his case. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that learned courts below rightly appreciated the true facts of the case, while arriving at a just conclusion and the impugned judgments deserve to be upheld.
On the other hand, in the sale deed Ex.P3 dated 21.6.2000 suffered by defendant No.2-Hawa Singh, it was clearly mentioned that he was selling the suit property for due consideration, because he was in need of money for bearing the expenses of his family and paying loan. Defendant No.1 sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.1-A, who was none else, but real brother of father of the plaintiff. Further, he himself produced a copy of mark C from which it was clear that Begh Raj-father of the plaintiff purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 16.3.1959 from Sukhi Ram and Amar Singh sons of Biru. Thus, as per the own pleaded case of the plaintiff, suit property was neither coparcenary property nor it was ancestral property, in the hands of Hawa Singh-defendant No.2. Kumar Amit 2014.03.07 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 406 of 2014 (O&M)
6
Since the plaintiff himself neither pleaded nor proved the material fact of the suit property being ancestral in nature, he was rightly nonsuited by the learned courts below and the impugned judgments deserve to be upheld for this reason also.
Defendant No.2-Hawa Singh had three daughters and three sons including the plaintiff. This fact was proved by his wife Smt. Lakshmi Devi, who appeared as PW3. According to PW3 her daughter-Murti was married in the year 2001. It is so established on record that Hawa singh was in genuine need of money to perform the marriage of his daughter, he being the sole earning member in the family. It has also come on record that defendant No.2-Hawa Singh was having two-three houses in his name which has been so proved by PW3-Lakshmi Devi wife of Hawa Singh-defendant No.2. Thus, it becomes crystal clear that Hawa Singh sold the suit property for legal necessity. Plaintiff failed to lead any evidence to the contrary. In such a situation, the irresistible conclusion is that plaintiff failed to prove his case and the learned courts below did not commit any error of law, while passing the impugned judgments which deserve to be upheld.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case in either of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below. He also failed to put into service any substantive argument, so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned
courts below. Further, no question of law much less substantial Kumar Amit 2014.03.07 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 406 of 2014 (O&M)
7
question of law thereof has been found involved in the present case, which is sine qua non for interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. Thus, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below deserve to be upheld for this reason as well.
Since the appeal is being dismissed, application for condonation of delay has also been found devoid of any merit and the same is ordered to be dismissed, as no sufficient ground has been made out for condoning the delay.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is misconceived, devoid of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, the instant regular second appeal stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
24.01.2014 AK Sharma
Kumar Amit 2014.03.07 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts erred in not appreciating evidence to prove the suit property was ancestral.
Whether the sale of joint family property was made without legal necessity.
Whether a substantial question of law is involved to warrant interference under Section 100 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Monu
Suman and others
Rameshwark Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
