Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kaushalya Devi And Others vs Prem Devi And Others on 9 July, 2014
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
RSA No.3172 of 2012(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3172 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:09.07.2014
Kaushalya Devi and others
... Appellants
Versus
Prem Devi and others
... Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present:Mr. R.S. Chaunan, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. Manoj Dhiman, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral)
Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.05.2007. The appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was, accordingly, dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.04.2012. That is how, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.
In a suit filed by the plaintiffs, they prayed for a declaration that they were sole owners in possession to the extent of ½ share of the suit land. Consequently, mutation Rajan Kumar 2014.07.11 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.3172 of 2012(O&M) [2] No.1534, dated 30.05.1990, vide which 1/3rd share in the estate of their father i.e. Jai Karan Singh mutated in favour of Balwant Singh(defendant), be held to be illegal, void. By way of a consequential relief, a decree for permanent injunction was prayed for, restraining the defendant from causing dispossession of the plaintiffs or alienating the suit land. It was maintained that Jai Karan Singh son of Moola was the owner in possession to the extent of ½ share of the land measuring 173 kanals 1 marla and ½ share of the land measuring 14 kanals 15 marlas, total measuring 187 kanals 16 marlas. Jai Karan Singh died on 28.12.1987. Defendant-Balwant Singh was stated to have born to Sita Devi from the lions of Tarloka, 67 years prior to the filing of the present suit. It was after the birth of the defendant, Sita Devi married Jai Karan Singh, by Chadar Andaji. And plaintiffs were born out of the said wedlock. In short, plaintiffs were purported to be sons of Jai Karan Singh, whereas, defendant- Balwant Singh was stated to be the son of Tarloka son of Bajjo. Defendant was alleged to be a Pichhlag of Sita Devi. Thus, he had no right, title or interest in the estate of Jai Karan Singh. Jai Karan Singh died leaving behind only the plaintiffs, who are the sole owners of the suit property as Sita Devi had pre- deceased Jai Karan Singh. Mutation No.1534, sanctioned on 30.05.1990, regarding the suit land to the extent of 1/3rd share Rajan Kumar 2014.07.11 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.3172 of 2012(O&M) [3] in favour of the defendant, was illegal and void. Even previously, a suit was filed by the plaintiff i.e. Suit No.765 of 24.09.1997 against the defendants regarding the suit land, which was decided on 27.09.1997 by way of a compromise, wherein, defendant agreed that he would get the land comprised in khasra No.54 and 389 situated in Village Karoli transferred in the name of the plaintiffs but the defendant did not abide by the said compromise. Thus, the suit.
The defendant in his defence pleaded that, he was wrongly depicted as Balwant Singh @ Harnam Singh son of Tarlok Singh whereas he was Balwant Singh son of Jai Karan Singh son of Moola, resident of Village Karoli. Suit filed by the plaintiff was stated to be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code as previous suit between the parties in respect of the same land was decided by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Pathankot. Indisputably, Jai Karan Singh was owner of the suit land, who was father of the plaintiffs and also the defendant and the defendant was his eldest son. It was denied that Sita Devi was the widow of Tarloka or that he was born out of marriage of Sita Devi and Tarloka. In fact, the answering defendant was born in Sialkot where his father Jai Karan Singh and mother Sita Devi resided as husband and wife. Answering defendant purported himself to be the real brother of Rajan Kumar 2014.07.11 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.3172 of 2012(O&M) [4] plaintiffs. Mutation No.1534 was not illegal or void.
On an analysis of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, the learned trial Court observed that plaintiff-Raghbir Singh in his cross-examination had admitted that he had received compensation regarding acquisition of land along with Balwant Singh. Defendant proved on record Ex.D1, copy of register of form 'D' for issuance of ration card, where name of his father was mentioned as Jai Karan Singh. In Ex.D2 form 'D' similar entry was recorded and so is the position in ration card Ex.D3. Still further, defendant proved on record the admission register Ex.D4 pertaining to the year 1946, which revealed that the name of his father was recorded as Jai Karan Singh. Shajra Nasab Ex.D5 also depicts the defendant to be son of Jai Karan Singh. Further, the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs were unable to give an particular details as regards the birth of defendant or his residing with Tarloka. That being so, it was held that the plaintiffs could not prove that, defendant-Balwant Singh was born out of the marriage of Sita Devi with Tarloka. Additionally, the learned trial Court also found that even earlier a suit was filed by the plaintiffs bearing No.765 of 24.09.1994 against the defendant. It was decided on 27.09.1994. The plaint of the said suit Ex.DW-P4 and copy of the order dated 27.09.1994 Ex.P5 show that the earlier suit was filed qua the Rajan Kumar 2014.07.11 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.3172 of 2012(O&M) [5] same subject matter. Copy of the plaint in the present suit was almost same as that of the earlier suit and relief sought was identical. The said suit was simply dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to institute a fresh suit. That being so, the present suit was held to be barred under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 17.05.2007, the suit was dismissed.
Being dissatisfied with the decree, plaintiffs preferred an appeal. Learned first appellate Court reviewed the matter in issue, evidence on record and on an analysis thereof found itself in concurrence with the view drawn by the learned trial Court and the findings recorded in support thereof. Further, plaintiff had admitted that their land was acquired at Village Nagrota by Union of India for defence purposes and the compensation was paid to them as well as the respondent in equal shares and they received compensation along with defendant. Further, respondent proved the record from the office of Food and Supply i.e. ration card, admission and withdrawal register of IDSD Senior Secondary School, Pathankot. The record from the Special L.A. Office and the documents produced on record proved that Balwant Singh was mentioned as son of Jai Karan Singh. So much so, Ex.DW4/B, the compromise, also showed that the parties themselves had admitted Balwant Singh as son Rajan Kumar 2014.07.11 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.3172 of 2012(O&M) [6] of Jai Karan Singh. That being so, vide judgment and decree dated 11.04.2012, learned first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the judgments rendered by both the Courts below.
Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to point out as to how the findings recorded by both the Courts were judicially preverse or contrary to the position on record.
In the wake of the position as set out above and the conclusions that have concurrently been recorded by both the Courts below, there is hardly any ground, least plausible in law, to interfere with the decrees being challenged in the present appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. The same being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
(ARUN PALLI)
July 09, 2014 JUDGE
Rajan
Rajan Kumar
2014.07.11 11:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh