Punjab-Haryana High Court
Fakir Chand And Others vs Dharu Ram And Others on 11 September, 2009
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
RSA No. 531 of 2005 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 531 of 2005
Date of Decision: 11.9.2009
Fakir Chand and others ......Appellants
Versus
Dharu Ram and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
1. Whether Reporters of 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: Shri Pritam Saini, Advocate, fro the appellants.
Shri R.S. Budhwar, Advocate, for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration challenging decree dated 27.10.1987, was dismissed.
The appellants are legal heirs of one Dharu Ram. Said Dharu Ram, defendant No.1, has purportedly suffered a decree in favour of his wife Bachni Devi, defendant No.2, on 27.10.1987. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the property in the hands of defendant No.1 was ancestral property. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of RSA No. 531 of 2005 (2) Dharu Ram and plaintiff No.3 is the wife of Dharu Ram, therefore, defendant No.1, could not have excluded them from inheriting his estate, while suffering the aforesaid decree.
In the written statement filed, the defendants denied that the property is ancestral. It was further stated that plaintiff No.3 was married to Ishwar, younger brother of defendant No.1 and after the death of Ishwar, plaintiff No.3, went back to her parental village and performed Kareva and got two children i.e., plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2.
After considering the evidence on record, it was found that the property in the hands of defendant No.1 is not ancestral property. The learned trial Court recorded a concurrent finding of fact that plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.3 is his wife, but since Dharu Ram is the absolute owner of the suit property, he could suffer a consent decree in favour of his another wife i.e., defendant No.2. Such decree has been affirmed in appeal as well.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the plaintiffs, who are found to be the sons and wife of Dharu Ram, have been completely excluded by Dharu Ram, when Dharu Ram suffered a consent decree in respect of his estate in favour of defendant No.2. It is, thus, argued that such act of Dharu Ram is unfair, unreasonable and not tenable.
The said argument is not tenable. Dharu Ram as an absolute owner of the property is competent to suffer a consent decree in favour of his wife. The appellants who are also near relations of Dharu Ram, RSA No. 531 of 2005 (3) cannot make a grievance if Dharu Ram made a preference in favour of defendant No.2 ignoring the appellants.
Finding of facts recorded by the Courts below are sought to be disputed by way of re-appreciation of evidence. However, it could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration.
Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 11-09-2009 ds