Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hasham vs Jumma And Others on 20 February, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CR No.1289 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(115)
CR No.1289 of 2014
Date of decision:20.02.2014
Hasham
......Petitioner
Versus
Jumma and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 06.02.2014 (Annexure P-6), whereby application moved by the petitioner for permission to frame additional issues, was dismissed.
Respondent Nos.1 to 7 have filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction by challenging the decree dated 02.06.1988 and release deed dated 02.07.2010 executed in favour of the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court:-
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration to the effect that they are owners in Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.24 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.1289 of 2014 -2- possession of the land detailed in para no.1 of the plaint and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 2.6.1988 passed by ACIG, FP Jhirka, mutation No.8258 and subsequent entries in jamabandi/revenue record, are illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and is not binding on the right, title or interest of the plaintiffs, on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the release deed dated 2.7.2010 in favour of defendant No.2 is also illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs, and the same is liable to be set aside, on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP
3. If issues No.1 & 2 are proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating/transferring the suit land, as prayed for? OPP
4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for possession of the suit land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint, as prayed for? OPP
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.24 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.1289 of 2014 -3- present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD
8. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the Court, if so to what effect? OPD
9. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
10. Whether Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? OPD
11. Relief."
Petitioner had prayed that the following additional issues be framed:-
"1. Whether defendant No.2 is legally adopted son of Bhagmal? OPD.
2. Whether Bhagmal had acquired occupancy rights in the suit land by adoption of law and had become full fledge owner in possession of the suit land? OPD."
Trial Court, while dismissing the application has observed that Bhagmal has been declared as owner in possession of the suit land vide judgment/decree dated 02.06.1988 on the basis of occupancy rights. With regard to decree dated 02.06.1988, issue No.1 has already been framed by the trial court. Bhagmal executed release deed in favour of the petitioner by treating him as his adopted son. So far as release deed dated 02.07.2010 is concerned, issue No.2 has been framed by the trial court to the effect as to whether the said release deed is illegal, null and void. In these circumstances, with regard to the issues now sought to be framed by Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.24 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.1289 of 2014 -4- the petitioner, he can lead his evidence while rebutting the evidence led by the petitioner qua issue Nos.1 and 2. Hence, no additional issues are required to be framed.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA) JUDGE February 20, 2014.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.24 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document