Punjab-Haryana High Court
Niamat Singh And Others vs Mastan Singh And Another on 28 January, 2014
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
RSA No. 1491 of 1989 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 1491 of 1989
Date of Decision: January 28, 2014
Niamat Singh and others
... Appellants
Versus
Mastan Singh and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate,
for the respondents.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)
This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.1987 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Muktsar whereby suit of the appellants-plaintiffs has been dismissed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.1989 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot whereby appeal preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class has also been dismissed.
Kumar Virender 2014.02.13 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 1491 of 1989 2
The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are that appellants- plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration on the ground that the property in question is a Hindu Joint family property. Defendant no.1 has no right to sell or transfer the same. Further, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they have birth right in the said property, so the property cannot be sold or transferred or mortgaged by defendant no.1 in any manner in favour of defendant no.2 or before any other authority.
Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement taking defence that the plaintiffs are not the member of the joint Hindu Family and they have been residing separately for the last about 30 years. It is also averred that the suit in the present form is not maintainable. Defendant no.1 Mastan Singh claimed to be the exclusive owner of the property in dispute.
The Court of first instance, after perusal of the pleadings, framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute and are entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the land in dispute is the coparcenary property of the parties? If so, to what effect? OPP
3. Relief."
The Court of first instance vide judgment and decree dated 24.02.1987 dismissed the suit and recorded a finding that the suit land is not coparcenary property of the parties, the suit land has admittedly been Kumar Virender 2014.02.13 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 1491 of 1989 3 purchased by defendant no.1. Thereafter, appellants-plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.1987. The learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the learned Court of first instance vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.1989. Feeling aggrieved, this regular second appeal has been preferred.
At the time of admission, no substantial question of law was framed. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-
"1. Whether the appellants and respondents constitute a joint Hindu Family and a coparcenary?
2. Whether a karta can alienate the property to one of the coparceners without legal necessity?
3. Whether a coparcener can score an injunction against the latter for not alienating the property without legal necessity?
4. Whether the courts below have misread the evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice?
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the property is a coparcenary and joint Hindu Family property. There is no partition between the father and the sons.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is no evidence on record to prove that the property in dispute Kumar Virender 2014.02.13 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 1491 of 1989 4 coparcenary property. Learned counsel further contended that the property in question was actually purchased by defendant no.1 - Mastan Singh from Bakhtawar Singh etc. vide sale deeds (Ex.D1 and D2). There is not even an iota of evidence on record to show that any contribution was ever made by the appellants for the purchase of the property in dispute, nor there is any cogent and convincing evidence that they are living with defendant no.1.
I have considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show as to which material evidence has been misread and which has been wrongly taken into consideration by the learned Courts below. There is no evidence on record from which it could be proved that the property in question is an ancestral property rather sale deeds (Ex.D1 and Ex.D2) clearly indicate that it was purchased by defendant No.1 from Bakhtawar Singh etc. and the disputed property is a separate property.
No other point has been argued.
The concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by both the Courts below. In view of this, no question of law, much-less substantial question of law, as claimed, arises in this second appeal.
Dismissed.
No order as to costs.
January 28, 2014 [ Paramjeet Singh ]
vkd Judge
Kumar Virender
2014.02.13 10:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document