Punjab-Haryana High Court
Taro Devi vs Raunak Singh & Ors on 30 May, 2012
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
RSA No.1108 of 2012(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.1108 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:-30.05.2012
Taro Devi
......Appellant.
Versus
Raunak Singh & Ors.
......Respondents.
AND
RSA No.1109 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:-30.05.2012
Taro Devi
......Appellant.
Versus
Kashmiro & Anr.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.
C.M. No.2977-C of 2012 has been filed seeking condonation of 15 days delay in refilling the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by the affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 15 days in refilling the appeal is RSA No.1108 of 2012(O&M) #2# condoned.
RSA No.1108 of 2012
Through this common judgment, I shall dispose of two appeals filed by the appellant/plaintiff no.1 against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, whereby her suit for declaration that she and plaintiff no.2(now dead) are co-sharers in joint possession of the suit lands as mentioned in both the civil suits and the two gift deeds both dated 24.02.2000, executed by Kartara, defendant no.1 in favour of Raunak Singh and Ranjit Singh and the other in favour of Shangara Singh be declared null and void, have been dismissed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Anandpur Sahib vide its judgment and decree dated 20.08.2009 and the findings have been affirmed in appeal by learned Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Ropar vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2011.
For the sake of clarity, I am taking RSA No.1108 of 2012, as the main appeal in which the appellants/plaintiffs have challenged the gift deed executed in favour of Raunak Singh and Ranjit Singh both sons of Dilbagh Singh, as the facts of both the civil suits are same, therefore, the same can be discussed with the facts of this appeal itself.
Plaintiff/appellant had filed the suit by stating that Kartara son of Ram Rakha-defendant no.1 was the owner of the suit land measuring 41 Kanals 15 Marlas. This Kartara had no male lineal descendent and had only two daughters namely Taro Devi-plaintiff no.1 and Kashmiro-defendant no.3, this Kartara transferred the suit land in favour of his daughter's sons Raunak Singh and Ranjit Singh who are sons of Dilbagh Singh by means of registered Gift Deed dated 24.02.2002 on account of natural love and RSA No.1108 of 2012(O&M) #3# affection as they were looking after him and serve him. On 18.7.2000, the plaintiff along with wife of Kartara, filed the present suit for declaration that they were coparceners in the suit land which is ancestral in Kartara's hand as he had inherited the same from his father and as such they be declared co owners to the extent of 1/3rd share along with Kashmiro. Consequently, the gift deed in dispute was prayed to be declared null and void being a result of fraud as Kartara was a person of weak intellect and was not of sound disposing mind.
Upon notice, defendant no.1 Kartara and Donnee defendant no.2 denied that the suit land was ancestral in the hand of Kartara and it was stated that the same was self acquired property which was coming to him through his father, through a Will dated 3.6.1976. It was stated that the gift deed was a valid document and was an outcome of love and affection that Kartara had for them. Thus, the gift deed was executed in sound disposing mind as he wanted to reward his grandchildren for their services being rendered to him. Rest of the pleas were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.
From the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Both sides led their evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the findings of the learned trial Court were further affirmed in appeal by learned lower Appellate Court.
I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record carefully with his able assistance.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that both the RSA No.1108 of 2012(O&M) #4# courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by misreading the evidence on record and, therefore, have returned perverse findings. It was also argued that the property in dispute was ancestral property and the said fact has not been appreciated by both the courts below. Hence, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed.
After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and going through the record, I am of the considered opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed outrightly simply for the reason that the appellants have not been able to bring on record any cogent evidence to prove the fact that property in dispute was ancestral property. To prove the factum of the nature of the suit property being ancestral, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to show that the property was coming to Kartara through four male lineal descendants and the same had never been partitioned among them. However, in the present case, the appellants have not lead any evidence to prove this fact, rather it is clear from the impugned judgments and decrees that the property in dispute had devolved upon Kartara through a Will executed by his father and, therefore, property in hand was not ancestral in its nature and character. Hence, the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant qua the nature of the property does not hold forte.
It is further important to point out here that no particulars of fraud have either been pleaded or proved so that the veracity of the gift deed could be challenged. No evidence has been led by the appellants to prove the fact that defendant no.1 i.e. Kartara was mentally not well. The defendants had in fact examined the marginal witness of the impugned gift deed i.e. Gulzar Singh DW-2 along with scribe DW-3, so as to prove the RSA No.1108 of 2012(O&M) #5# validity of the said document. It is very interesting to note here that the appellants have challenged the gift deed executed by their father in favour of defendant nos.2 and 3 who are none else but the children of their own sister. Kartara had appeared in civil suit no.RT/18.7.2000(out of which RSA No.1109 of 2012 arises) wherein another gift deed in favour of Shangara was challenged and in that suit, Kartara had made a statement which is Ex.D-3 in the present case whereby he stated that the gift deeds were validly executed. Had this Kartara not been in sound disposing mind, learned trial Court which was recording the statement, would not have permitted the said statement to be recorded. However, it is presumed under law that if the statement is being recorded under the eyes of a Judge, the same holds a valid sanctity and it cannot be challenged on frivolous grounds. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the present appeals are completely devoid of merit as neither the appellants have been able to prove the property to be ancestral in character nor they have been able to substantiate their plea of fraud.
In view of the above, finding no question of law much less substantial question of law arising of determination, both the present second appeals are hereby dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE May 30, 2012 Vinay