This appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit for declaration that land was ancestral coparcenary property. The single judge held the suit dismissed as lower courts found no interference required since defendants proved the sale was for legal necessity.
The appeal is dismissed; the suit is upheld as dismissed by lower courts.
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.
R.S.A No. 3207-2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 3207-2014 (O&M) Date of decision:- 09.07.2019
Vikram Verma
...Appellants
Versus
Vijay Kumar Verma and ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ashok Kr. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3, 4, 9 and 10
RITU BAHRI J. (Oral)
The present appeal is directed against concurrent find of fact recorded by both the Courts below whereby suit filed by plaintiff/appellant for declaration to the effect that suit land fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint is ancestral and coparcenary property of Joint Hindu Family, has been dismissed
On notice of the suit, defendant Nos. 1, 3, 6 to 10 filed joint written statement raising objections that plaintiff/appellant is neither coparcenar nor the suit property is coparcenary property. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 did not constitute joint Hindu Family. Vaid Bisheshra Nand was father of defendant No. 1 who had some property at village Gaggarpur. It was denied if disputed property was purchased by defendant No. 1 out of sale consideration of inherited property. Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 claimed that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 also filed written statement admitting the claim of Gaurav Arora plaintiff while defendant No. 4, 11 and 12 filed separate written statement 2019.08.07 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
R.S.A No. 3207-2014
2
on the some lines of defendant No. 1.
Replication was filed. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the suit land is coparcenary land of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3?OPP
2. Whether the defendant No. 1 as Karta sold the disputed land in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 12 without any legal necessity and without consideration?OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD
7. Whether the suit is within time?OPP
8. Whether defendants no. 4 to 12 are bonafide purchasers for the value and without notice? OPD
10. Relief
Both the Courts below rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by observing that plaintiff has examined Patwar Moharrir Ram Dayal, but he has not brought the original record, as is clear from his crossexamination. Further in his cross examination, Patwar Moharrir Ram Dayal admitted that as per note on Page No. 7, the coparcenary came to an end and specific khasra numbers were given to each co-sharer. Page 7 of the excerpt shows that it is regarding mutation of partition amongst the sons of Bisheshar Nand entered in the year 1963. It was duly proved that defendant
Gaurav Arora No. 1 has legal necessity to alienate the suit land and it is admitted by the 2019.08.07 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
R.S.A No. 3207-2014
3
appellant in the plaint that defendant No. 1 has spent considerable fortune on the marriage of his daughers. Thus, the impugned sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 12 were executed for legal necessity
Accordingly, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts does not require any interference by this Court
No substantial question of law arises for adjudication by this
Court.
The appeal stands dismissed.
09.07.2019 ( RITU BAHRI ) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
Gaurav Arora 2019.08.07 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding that the sale was due to legal necessity warrants interference on appeal.
Whether the impugned lower court judgments require any interference by this court.
Whether a substantial question of law arises for adjudication.
Vikram Verma
Vijay Kumar Verma
Ritu Bahri
Gaurav Arora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
