Plaintiff claimed joint purchase of land from Provincial Government and relied on an unregistered family arrangement allotting him a 30% share, seeking injunction against defendant's sale. Courts below found the arrangement concocted and dismissed the suit; the High Court upheld these concurrent factual findings.
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.
Sarita Rani
2024.12.17 05:22 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
RSA No.1009 of 2018 (O&M)
2024:PHHC: 168849
suit property was purchased by the par�es jointly from the Provincial Government in the name of defendant in the year 1987, wherein 70% funds were contributed by the defendant and 30% were contributed by the plain�ff. Muta�on No.2360 dated 16.10.1987 was sanc�oned in the name of the defendant and ever since then, defendant is recorded to be owner in possession of the suit land, though both the par�es are joint owner in possession thereof. It was claimed that as differences arose between the par�es regarding the suit property, therefore, in order to avoid any li�ga�on, both of them entered into a mutual se*lement dated 08.12.2008, whereby plain�ff was acknowledged to have 30% share in the suit property and defendant was acknowledged to have 70% share therein. On the basis of this family arrangement, plain�ff claims to be owner in possession of 30% share in the suit property and that he is en�tled to get the muta�on sanc�oned in his favour accordingly. As plain�ff came to know that defendant was bent upon to alienate the suit property, therefore, he filed the present suit seeking the decree of permanent injunc�on to restrain the defendant from aliena�ng the suit property in any manner whatsoever without ge/ng the same par��oned.
3.3 Defendant in his wrien statement, though admied that par�es are partners in a shop �tled M/s Madan Lal Sita Ram, but denied that they have ever purchased any land by the joint funds. He denied any property or business jointly with the plain�ff except the aforesaid shop. Defendant further claimed that suit property was purchased by him from the Provincial Government of Haryana for sale considera�on of ₹83,437.50, regarding which cer�ficate of transfer was granted to him. He denied that plain�ff contributed 30% funds to purchase the said property. Defendant further submied that he had earlier executed an agreement dated 21.11.2003 in favour of Smt. Gyarsi Devi W/o Phusa Ram, on which plain�ff had signed as an aes�ng witness, despite the fact that in that agreement, he (defendant – Jai Parkash) had claimed himself to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. Defendant further alleged family arrangement dated 08.12.2008 relied by the plain�ff to be based upon fraud
Sarita Rani 2024.12.17 05:22 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
Page 2 of 7
RSA No.1009 of 2018 (O&M)
2024:PHHC: 168849
and misrepresenta�on and having been executed under undue influence. It was further claimed that no such family arrangement could have taken place in the absence of their third brother Niranjan Lal and father Shri Madan Lal. It was submied that had any family arrangement taken place, the other brother and father would have also been party to the same. It was further alleged that Jiwan Ram Sanghi, the document writer, and witnesses to the alleged family selement were colluding with the plain�ff and under a conspiracy, the said document was prepared. It was claimed by the defendant that in order to se*le account of the joint business between the par�es, the plain�ff had asked him to prepare an affidavit and that he will purchase a stamp paper for the purpose and that he (defendant) should sign the same. Defendant claimed that as plain�ff was his elder brother therefore, under the trust, he signed the document on a blank stamp paper. Defendant did not have any suspicion on the plain�ff at that �me. Later on, when defendant asked the plain�ff to give that affidavit, the plain�ff told that the stamp paper had been misplaced somewhere. Denying any family arrangement and also controver�ng all other pleas of the plaint, defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3.4 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par�es was taken on record. Trial Court found that the plain�ff had failed to prove any share whatsoever in the suit property. It was found that defendant was exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. The family arrangement dated 08.12.2008 relied by the plain�ff was held to be not proved in accordance with law. It was also held that since plain�ff had failed to prove his possession over the suit land, therefore, the suit for permanent injunc�on was not even maintainable. With these findings on the material issues, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 26.03.2015 and the appeal filed by the plain�ff was dismissed by the District Judge, Narnaul, on 08.11.2017.
4.1 Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-plain�ff that the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. It is contended that scribe to the family arrangement, beside one of the a*es�ng witness were duly
Sarita Rani 2024.12.17 05:22 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
Page 3 of 7
RSA No.1009 of 2018 (O&M)
2024:PHHC: 168849
examined apart from the stamp vendor, who proved the family arrangement to have been executed between the par�es. The onus was upon the defendant to prove that the said family arrangement was the result of any fraud as was alleged by him, but defendant failed to discharge such onus and as such, the trial Court wrongly held that the plain�ff did not have any share in the suit property. Learned counsel contends further that since the plain�ff is to be joint owner in possession of the suit property to the extent of 30%, therefore, the suit for permanent injunc�on was maintainable.
4.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentdefendant has defended the judgments of the Courts below and contended that plain�ff uerly failed to prove that the suit property was purchased from any joint funds and that in fact the alleged family selement is the result of fraud and misrepresenta�on. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Sarita Rani 2024.12.17 05:22 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
Page 4 of 7
RSA No.1009 of 2018 (O&M)
2024:PHHC: 168849
statement nor in his tes�mony as DW2 denied his signature upon the said document (Ex.PW1/A). However, he alleged the said document to be based upon fraud and misrepresenta�on, having been executed under the undue influence. It is tes�fied by the defendant that the shop by the name of Madan Lal Sita Ram Firm situated at Manas Chowk, is joint of the par�es. Plain�ff was not giving accounts for the last so many days of the said firm and was only giving kachha wri�ng in this regard. In December, 2008, he asked the plain�ff to se*le the account. Plain�ff had told him that he would purchase a stamp paper and would sign the same and had asked the defendant also to sign the same. It is tes�fied by the defendant that plain�ff brought a stamp paper and being brother of the plain�ff and by trus�ng him, he signed the blank stamp paper. Defendant denied any family arrangement as claimed by the plain�ff, to have ever taken place.
Sarita Rani 2024.12.17 05:22 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
Page 5 of 7
RSA No.1009 of 2018 (O&M)
2024:PHHC: 168849
his presence. According to him, three persons were present there, when he reached there on the asking of his son, who had received a call from Sita Ram. He is not aware about the contents of the documents.
Sarita Rani 2024.12.17 05:22 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
Page 6 of 7
RSA No.1009 of 2018 (O&M)
2024:PHHC: 168849
defendant – Jai Parkash, it is categorically stated by him that he was the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land measuring 13 bigha 07 biswa, out of which he had agreed to sell 05 bigha 06 biswa and 16 biswansi to Smt. Gyarsi Devi. In order to wriggle out the said admission, plain�ff – Sita Ram during his cross-examina�on stated that on the asking of his father, he had got the muta�on sanc�oned in favour of his brother – Jai Parkash, i.e. defendant and that his father had assured him that aGer selling 40% share to Gyarsi Devi, the remaining 60% of the land shall equally belong to both the brothers, i.e. plain�ff and defendant. This stand as taken by the plain�ff in his cross-examina�on, is absolutely beyond pleadings and even contrary to the contents to the plaint, wherein there is no reference of any agreement to sell Ex.DW3/A executed in 2003.
December 17, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) ������� JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No
Sarita Rani 2024.12.17 05:22 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the alleged family arrangement dated 08.12.2008 granting the appellant-plaintiff a 30% share in the suit property was proved?
Whether the suit for permanent injunction restraining alienation without partition was maintainable?
Sita Ram
Jai Parkash
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
