Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Roshan Lal (Since Deceased) Through vs Pritam Singh & Others on 13 December, 2018

Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

RSA No.258 of 2012   along with Cross­ Objections No. 417 of 2012.

Judgment reserved on : 07.12.2018.

                                Date of decision: 13       December, 2018. 

th RSA No. 258 of 2012 Roshan Lal (since deceased) through  his LRs Nasreen Begum and others              ...Appellants.

                           r              Versus

    Pritam Singh & others                                                   ...Respondents

    Cross­Objections No. 417 of 2012



    Roshan Lal (since deceased) through 
    his LRs Nasreen Begum and others
                                         ...Non­objectors/Appellants




                                          Versus





    Pritam Singh & others                                 ...Objector/Respondents
    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1  No For the Appellants: Mr.   Vivek   Singh   Thakur, Advocate.       

              

For the Respondents: Mr.Ajay   Sharma,   Advocate,   for respondents   No.   1   and 6/Objectors.   

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:26 :::HCHP 2     Tarlok Singh Chauhan Judge  .

Defendant   No.1/appellant   has   filed   this   appeal against   the   judgment   and   decree   dated   13.1.2012   passed   by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshla, H.P.  The facts of the case may be noticed as follows:­

2. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to  the  effect that he has  preferential  right to  acquire/purchase the property qua 193/1380 share measuring 0­37­00 HMs from defendant No. 2 comprised in Khata No. 9 Khatauni Nos. 17 to 19, Khasra Nos. 298, 299, 300, 301, 308, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315,   317,   325,   374,   375,   376,   379,   380,   381,   382,   324,   297 measuring   2­64­58   HMs,   situated   in   Village   Chandani,   Mauja Bhali, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. as per jamabandi for the   year   2000­01   (herein   after   referred   to   as   the   suit   land), subject to depositing of sale consideration of Rs.80,000/­ along with other expenses of registration, being the heir in class 1 st list of schedule as per Hindu Succession Act 1956.   The sale deed bearing   document   No.   192   dated   14.3.2005   executed   by defendant   No.   2   in   favour   of   defendant   No.   1/appellant   is   the direct   attack   on   the   preferential   rights   of   the   plaintiff   and   the ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:26 :::HCHP 3 same is required to be declared as wrong, null and void, illegal with   consequential   relief   by   way   of   issuance   of   permanent .

injunction   restraining   defendant   No.1/appellant   permanently from alienating, raising any sort of construction, selling, cutting and   removing   the   tress   standing   over   the   suit   land   or   in   any manner whatsoever and in alternative suit for joint possession of the suit land.  

3. The suit land was earlier owned and possessed by Sh. Machala, S/o Sh. Sukhia, i.e. father, husband and maternal grandfather   of   plaintiff   and   defendants   No.   2   to   6.       After   the death   of   Machala   the   suit   land   was   inherited   by   plaintiff   and defendants No. 2 to 6 in equal shares being the heirs of class 1 st of schedule as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956.  It is averred that Smt. Vidya Devi died prior to the death of Machala and as such defendant   No.   6   being   the   Machala's   daughter's   son   (Dotas) inherited   the   suit   land   in   equal   shares   with   the   plaintiff   and defendants No. 2 to 5 in equal shares.   Defendant No. 3 is the step brother of the plaintiff and others are legal heirs of deceased Machala.     It   is   alleged   that   defendants'   No.   5   and   6   have relinquished the land of their shares in favour of plaintiff being nearest relations, but they have also been impleaded as party in ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:26 :::HCHP 4 the suit in order to avoid any legal complication.   On 14.3.2005, defendant No. 2 behind the back of the plaintiff, sold his share in .

the suit land to defendant  No. 1/appellant for sale consideration of Rs.80,000/­ vide registered sale deed document No. 192 dated 14.3.2005.   The said sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour   of   defendant   No.   1/appellant   is   wrong,   null   and   void.

Consequently,   relief   of   injunction,   restraining   defendant No.1/appellant from alienating, raising any sort of construction and cutting and removing trees from the suit land was sought.  

4. The suit was resisted and contested by defendants No.   1   to   3   by   filing   written   statement,   wherein   preliminary objections qua maintainability of the suit, cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, mis­joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiff having   not   approached   the   Court   with   clean   hands   have   been taken.  

5.  On merits, it is submitted that defendant/appellant No. 1 was bonafide purchaser of the suit land and the plaintiff never   asked   defendant   No.   2   to   sell   the   land   to   him.     Further alleged   that   plaintiff   asked   defendant   No.   2   to   relinquish   her share in his favour and as such plaintiff has got no preferential ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:26 :::HCHP 5 rights over the suit land and prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.  

.

6. The   learned   trial   Court   vide   orders   dated 26.11.2005 framed the following issues:­ "1. Whether   the   plaintiff   is   having   a   preferential   right   to purchase the suit land?   OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the purchase of the suit land   for   a   consideration   of   Rs.80,000/­   and   other expenses of registration?    OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?    OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus­standi to file the present suit?   OPD

5. Whether   the   plaintiff   is   estopped   from   filing   the   present suit due to his act and conduct?   OPD

6. Whether the suit is bad for mis­joinder of necessary party?

OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands   and   has   suppressed   the   material   facts   from   this court?   OPD

8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?    OPD

9. Relief."

7. After   recording   evidence,   the   learned   trial   Court dismissed   the   suit.     Aggrieved   by   the   judgment   and   decree passed  by  the   learned   trial  Court,  plaintiff  preferred   an   appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court and the same was partly allowed.   Aggrieved   against   the   judgment   and   decree   passed   by ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:26 :::HCHP 6 the   learned   lower   Appellate   Court,   defendant   No.   1/appellant filed the instant appeal.

.

8. At the same time, plaintiff being aggrieved by a part of the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court   filed   Cross   Objections.     Both,   the   appeal   and   cross objections     came   up   for   consideration   on   26.08.2013   and   the appeal   was   admitted   on   the   following   substantial   question   of law:­  r "Whether   the   provisions   of   Section   22   of   the   Hindu Succession   Act   could   be   invoked   in   the   present   case, especially   when   the   land   was   Banjar­Kadim   and   Gair Mumkin?"

9. Whereas,   the   Cross   Objections   were   admitted   on the following substantial question of law:­ "Whether   jamabandi   Ext.   P1,   for   the   year   2000­01 stands  mis­read and mis­appreciated by learned District Judge, vide impugned   judgment, thereby vitiating   the same?

10. Thereafter,   on   05.10.2018,   this   Court   on   the application   of   the   applicants/respondents   framed   the   following additional substantial question of law:­ "Whether the learned first Appellate Court has misread and mis­appreciated the very controversy before it to non­ ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:26 :::HCHP 7 suit   the   objectors   thereby   vitiating     the     impugned judgment to that extent?"

.

11. Both   appeal   and   cross   objections   came   up   for consideration before this Court on 01.10.2015 and it was noticed that   it   is   Section   22   of   the   Hindu   Succession   Act,   the interpretation whereof  is involved in this lis.  The learned Courts below had relied upon a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court   in    Baldev   Parkash   and   others  versus    Dhian   Singh and others, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 599, wherein it was held that suit under Section  22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was not   maintainable   seeking   preferential   right   to   purchase   the agricultural   land.     However,   being   not   inclined   to   follow   the judgment in  Baldev Parkash's case (supra), I,  vide order dated 14.10.2015   after   specifically   disagreeing   with   the   judgment   in Baldev Parkash's case  (supra), referred the following question for consideration before the Larger Bench:­ "Whether the   provisions of Hindu Succession Act apply to agricultural lands?

12. The   learned   Division   Bench   vide   judgment   dated 01.03.2018 has in two separate but concurring judgments held that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act would apply to the ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:26 :::HCHP 8 agricultural lands and concurred with the view taken by me and held that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act will apply to the .

agricultural lands.

13.  Adverting to the facts, the suit of the  was dismissed by the learned trial Court primarily   on the ground that Section 22   of   the   Hindu   Succession   Act     was   not   applicable   to   the agricultural   land   after   placing   reliance   in  Baldev   Parkash's case (supra). Even though, the appeal was partly allowed by the learned first appellate Court whereby it was held that the plaintiff has   preferential   right   to   purchase   the   share   of   Juno   Devi comprised   in   Khasra   Nos.   298,   300,   314,   375,   376,   379,   380, 381,   382   and     297   after   payment   of   proportionate   amount   of consideration     of   sale   deed   and   sale   deed   to   this   effect     was declared   null   and   void   and   on   payment   of   proportionate consideration, the plaintiff was held to be the joint co­owner of the   Khasra   numbers   qua   shares   of   Juno   Devi.   However,     as regards the share of Juno Devi comprised in Khasra Nos. 299, 301, 308, 311, 312, 313, 315, 317, 324, 325 and 374, the suit of the   plaintiff   was   dismissed   on   the   ground   that   he   has   no preferential   right   to   purchase   agricultural   land   and   land subservient to agricultural purpose and consequently sale deed ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:26 :::HCHP 9 qua  these  Khasra numbers was  held  valid  and legal document and it was held that defendant   was co­owner in possession   of .

the   land   nature   of   which     was   'Barani   Awaal'   (agricultural cultivable   land)   and   'Kharaitar'   (grassy)   as   mentioned   in jamabandi Ex. P­1 placed on record.  It was further directed that the plaintiff would pay court fee upon sale consideration  amount of   Rs.80,000/­   before   learned   trial   Court   at   the   time   of execution. r

14. Now, that the learned Division Bench of this Court has already set aside the judgment in  Baldev Parkash's case (supra) and held the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act to be applicable   to   the   agricultural   lands,   therefore,   the   judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court is required to be set aside to the extent it denied  the plaintiff the preferential right to purchase   agricultural   land   and   subservient   land   qua   share   of Juno   Devi   comprised   in   Khasra   Nos.299,   301,   308,   311,   312, 313,   315,   317,   324,   325   and   374   and   thereby   the   suit   of   the plaintiff was required to be decreed  in toto.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the substantial question of law framed in the appeal is answered by holding that the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act could be ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:26 :::HCHP 10 invoked   in   the   present   case   as   the   land,   irrespective   of   the classification, was agricultural land to which the provisions of the .

Hindu Succession Act are applicable in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 01.03.2018.

16. That   apart,   it   would   be   noticed   that   both   the learned Courts below have not been able to correctly appreciate the controversy involved between the parties, more particularly, the provisions contained in Section 22  of the Hindu Succession Act and its applicability. Accordingly, the additional substantial question of law framed by this Court on 05.10.2018 is answered in favour of the applicants/cross objectors. 

17. As   regards   the   other   substantial   question   of   law framed in cross objections, the same is rendered academic and, therefore, need not   be answered as the suit of the plaintiff has already been ordered to be decreed in toto.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the defendant is dismissed and the cross objections filed by the plaintiff  are allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in its entirety to the effect that the plaintiff has preferential right  to purchase the property qua 193/1380 share measuring 0­37­00 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:26 :::HCHP 11 HMs   from   defendant   No.2   pertaining   to   the   land   comprising Khata Number 9, Khatauni Numbers 17,18, 19, Khasra Numbers .

298, 299, 300, 301, 308, 311, 312, 313 314, 315, 317, 325, 374, 375, 376, 379, 380, 381, 382, 324 and 297, measuring 2­64­58 HMs, situated in   Village Chandani, Mauza Bhali, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P.   subject to depositing   the amount of sale consideration   i.e.   Rs.80,000/­   along   with   other   expenses   being Class­I   Hindu   heir   as   per   Hindu   Succession   Act,   1956   with   a consequential relief  that the sale deed bearing document No. 192 dated   14.03.2005   executed   by   defendant   No.2   in   favour   of defendant   No.1   is   declared   wrong,   illegal,   null   and   void.     The parties are left to bear their own costs.   Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

  (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)                   Judge 13  December, 2018.

th  (krt) ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:26 :::HCHP