Dismissed

Chotte Lal v. Tarsem Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2014RSA/674/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal regarding a suit for declaration and permanent injunction over joint family property, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the plaintiff-appellant failed to prove ownership since the property was exclusively purchased and registered in the name of the defendant's ancestor, making him the true owner. The lower appellate court correctly allowed the defendant

What the court decided

AI extract

Chotte Lal Vs Tarsem Singh — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RSA No. 674 of 2014 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RSA No. 674 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.02.2014

Chotte Lal

.....Appellant

Versus

Tarsem Singh and others

¶8

.....Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶10

Present: Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

¶12

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.

¶17

Plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment of reversal, in

¶18

a suit for declaration.

¶19

Briefly put, facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the suit for declaration against the defendants on the allegation that plaintiff No.1 along with his real brothers namely Janak Singh (father of plaintiff No.2), Hukum Singh (father of plaintiff No.3) and Ram Singh (father of defendant) purchased the suit property measuring 190 sq. yards jointly. However, with consent of all the brothers, sale deed of suit property was registered in the name of only one brother, i.e. Ram Singh-father of the defendant. In order to

¶20

Kumar Amit 2014.04.29 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA No. 674 of 2014 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

avoid any dispute, they entered into an agreement whereby the suit property was devided into four equal shares. All of them remained in possession of their respective shares. After purchase of the abovesaid plot, all the four brothers raised construction over the plot with joint funds and started residing in the same alongwith their families. After the death of Janak Singh, Hukum Singh and Ram Singh, their sons i.e. Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and defendant stepped into their shoes and came into possession of their respective shares. However, on account of rise in prices, defendant became greedy and taking advantage of the fact that suit property was entered in his name in the revenue record, started interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. He also started threatening them to dispossess from the suit property and also to alienate the same, thereby compelling the plaintiffs to file the present suit.

¶24

Defendant was put to notice. He appeared and filed the written statement taking preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the suit, locus standi, non availability of cause of action, suppression of material facts and affixation of improper court fee on the plaint. On merits, it was alleged that plaintiff forged and fabricated the agreement dated 13.3.1990 in order to grab the suit property. Suit property was exclusively purchased and constructed by Ram Singh-father of the defendant and plaintiffs had nothing to do either with the purchase and construction of the suit property. Denying all other averments taken in the plaint, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

¶25

On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:-

¶26

“ 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that

¶27

Kumar Amit 2014.04.29 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

RSA No. 674 of 2014 (O&M)

¶29

¶30

they are owners in possession to the extent of 1/4^th share of the property/house fully detailed in the heading of the plaint?OPP

¶31

2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant as prayed for?OPP

¶32

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

¶33

4. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

¶34

5. Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and have suppressed material facts from this Court?OPD

¶35

6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.

¶36

7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

¶37

8. Relief”

¶38

In order to prove their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiffs duly proved their case. Their suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.2012. Feeling aggrieved, defendant filed his appeal which was allowed by the learned lower appellate court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.7.2013. Hence this appeal.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial

¶40

Kumar Amit 2014.04.29 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

RSA No. 674 of 2014 (O&M)

¶42

¶43

court rightly decreed the suit but the learned lower appellate court proceeded on a patently illegal approach, while setting aside the cogent findings recorded by the learned trial court. He further submits that judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court deserve to be restored, whereas impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Judge were patently illegal and liable to be set aside. He next contended that plaintiffs have duly proved their case by leading sufficient, cogent and convincing evidence, but the learned lower appellate court miserably failed to appreciate the same in the correct perspective. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court, by allowing the present appeal.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the case, 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). No substantial question of law has been found involved in the present case, because of which the appeal is liable to be dismissed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

¶45

It is a matter of record that suit property was purchased through a sale deed which was admittedly in the name of Ram Singh-father of defendant. Suit property was inherited by the defendant and his sister, being legal heirs of deceased Ram Singh. Ram Singh purchased the suit proprty in the year 1959, which was mutated in his name on the basis of sale deed.

¶46

Kumar Amit 2014.04.29 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

RSA No. 674 of 2014 (O&M)

¶48

¶49

Jamabandi Ex.D2 was also proved in this regard. Plaintiffs failed to prove that they also contributed in any form for purchase of the suit property in the year 1959. Plaintiffs also failed to prove that construction on the suit property was raised from joint earnings of the family. Having said that, it can be safely concluded that plaintiffs were having no pre-existing right over the suit property, which was purchased, constructed and exclusively owned by Ram Singh-father of the defendant.

¶50

Further, suit property cannot be said to be a property of Joint Hindu Family or coparcenary property by any stretch of imagination. The suit property was self acquired property of Ram Singh and plaintiffs failed to bring on record any contrary evidence by taking appropriate pleadings and leading cogent evidence. It was also not the case of plaintiffs-appellant that after purchase of the suit property, Ram Singh had thrown it into the common pool with intention of abandoning his separate claim over the suit property.

¶51

Plaintiffs neither pleaded nor proved that the suit property was coparcenary property or a property of Joint Hindu Family. In such a situation, even the alleged family settlement in the form of agreement Ex.P1 would also be of no help to the plaintiffs-appellant. This document, indisputably requires registration. Admittedly, it was not a registered document. Thus, agreement Ex.P1 was of no help to the plaintiffs-appellant, because it was not a registered document. The agreement Ex.P1 will not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiffs-appellant. Once no right accrues in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of agreement Ex.P1, they were rightly not found entitled for any relief by the learned lower

¶52

Kumar Amit 2014.04.29 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

RSA No. 674 of 2014 (O&M)

¶54

¶55

appellate court, while passing the impugned judgment and decree.

¶56

So far as the possession of the plaintiffs was concerned, it was admitted by defendant-Tarsem Singh in his cross examination as DW1 that plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed property, but only as his licensee whereas the suit property was his absolute ownership. In this view of the fact situation, plaintiffs were not entitled for relief of injunction against the true owner. In fact, plaintiffs failed to lead sufficient, cogent and convincing evidence because of which, the learned lower appellate court rightly allowed the appeal of the defendant by passing the impugned judgment and decree which deserve to be upheld.

¶57

The relevant record including the revenue record was in favour of the defendant. No contrary evidence was produced by the plaintiffs. In spite of the abovesaid peculiar facts of the case, learned trial court based its judgment on suppossitions and assumptions in favour of the plaintiffs, ignoring the fact that agreement Ex.P1 could not be proved by the plaintiffs. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that learned lower appellate court committed no error of law, while passing the impugned judgment and decree and the same deserve to be upheld.

¶58

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any patent illegality or perversity apparent on the record of the case, in the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court. He also failed to put into service any substantiate argument, so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned lower appellate court. Further, no question of law much less substantial question of law has been found involved in the present case, which is sine qua non

¶59

Kumar Amit 2014.04.29 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

RSA No. 674 of 2014 (O&M)

¶61

¶62

for interference at the hands of this Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. In this view of the matter, it is held that learned lower appellate arrived at a judicious conclusion in non suiting the plaintiffs and the impugned judgment and decree deserve to be upheld.

¶63

Since the appeal is being dismissed on merits, 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.

¶64

No other argument was raised.

¶65

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 misconcieved, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made.

¶66

Resultantly, the instant regular second appeal stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶67

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶68

5.2.2014 Ak Sharma

¶69

Kumar Amit 2014.04.29 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Chotte Lal v. Tarsem Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chotte Lal v. Tarsem Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana & Ors. Vs Manju & Anr.

Economic Adviser State of Punjab Vs Malkiat Singh

Nazar Ram Bali Vs Naveen Kumar

Chanan Singh & Ors. Vs Gurdev Singh

(O&M)Oriental Ins.Co. Vs Paramjit Kaur etc.

Harjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs Kaushalya Bai & Ors.