Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh vs Surinder Singh Minor on 22 April, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3914 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22nd April, 2014
Baldev Singh
Appellant
Versus
Surinder Singh minor
Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondent.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for possession of the property in dispute was dismissed.
As per the averments made, Sukhdev Singh, real brother of the appellant, was owner in possession of the plot/house in dispute measuring 20' x 96' which he purchased vide sale deed dated 15.07.1974. Said Sukhdev Singh was married to Subhadra Rani but was issueless. Sukhdev Singh died on 02.12.1994 and after his death, Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.3914 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Ramesh Kumar @ Harmesh Kumar in connivance with Subhadra Rani got mutated ½ share of the house in dispute in the name of Surinder Singh defendant, who had no relation with Sukhdev Singh. Subhadra Rani further sold ½ share of the house in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 09.04.2003 in favour of Kewal Krishan son of Banarsi Dass resident of Mansa. It is further case of the plaintiff-appellant that Subhadra Rani in connivance with her brother got permission from the Court on 11.11.2003 to sell ½ share of the house which stood in the name of defendant, wrongly showing him the son of Sukhdev Singh though she was not entitled to do so. On the basis of the said permission, Subhadra Rani sold ½ share of the house in dispute vide sale deed dated 09.01.2004 in favour of Daya Rani daughter of Paras Ram resident of Mansa and also purchased a house measuring 18' x 48' vide sale deed dated 09.01.2004 in the name of the defendant. Subhadra Rani died issueless on 26.05.2005. She had inherited the property of Sukhdev Singh as his sole heir and after her death plaintiff is entitled to inherit the property in dispute, as the defendant is son of Harmesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar. The house in the name of defendant has been purchased by selling the property of Sukhdev Singh, brother of the plaintiff. The defendant has wrongly shown himself to be the son of Sukhdev Singh and thus, the plaintiff was entitled to inherit the property of Subhadra Rani (since deceased). According to the plaintiff, he came to know about the aforesaid facts on 25.11.2005 when he collected the revenue record. He asked the defendant to get the revenue record corrected and hand over the Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.3914 of 2011 (O&M) 3 possession of the house in question to him, however, the defendant flatly refused to do so. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession of the property in dispute on the basis of inheritance of Subhadra Rani deceased in his favour.
Upon notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. It was averred that the defendant was taken in adoption by deceased Sukhdev Singh and Subhadra Rani since his birth. However, during the lifetime of Sukhdev Singh, the adoption deed could not be executed. The adoption deed was executed on 19.12.1994 after the death of Sukhdev Singh and was registered as per law. Thus, the defendant was adopted son of deceased Sukhdev Singh and Subhadra Rani. It was further averred that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant, who was lawful owner in possession of the house in dispute, which was purchased by the deceased. The suit had been filed out of greed and the same was not maintainable. It was further averred that after the death of Sukhdev Singh, Subhadra Rani obtained a legal heir certificate from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, wherein she mentioned defendant Surinder Singh as her son and legal heir of Sukhdev Singh along with herself. After the death of Sukhdev Singh, his property devolved upon his legal heirs i.e. Subhadra Rani and Surinder Singh-defendant to the extent of ½ share each, and thus, mutation of inheritance was rightly sanctioned. The defendant admitted the sale of plot to the extent of Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.3914 of 2011 (O&M) 4 half share. Rest of the averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
Replication was filed by the plaintiff, wherein he denied the contentions made in the written statement and reiterated the averments set out in the plaint.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:
1. Whether the suit is barred under the Banarsi Prohibition Act? OPD
2. Whether the defendant was adopted by Sukhdev Singh and Subhadra Rani since his birth and adoption deed dated 19.12.2004 was registered as per law? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to inherit the property of Subhadra Rani? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the house as it was purchased by selling the property purchased by Sukhdev Singh? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the house in question? OPP
6. Relief.
After going through the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 06.09.2010 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.3914 of 2011 (O&M) 5
Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.03.2011. While dismissing the appeal, the lower appellate Court observed as under:
"13. The relationship of the appellant with Sukhdev Singh is admitted but the respondent has asserted that the appellant was not on visiting terms with Sukhdev Singh deceased. It is also admitted fact that Sukhdev Singh was husband of Subhadra Rani. The adoption of the respondent has been proved by adoption deed as well as School certificates which is valid adoption. The appellant was not able to disprove the adoption. It is in evidence that adoption deed dated 19.12.1994 was got registered by Subhadra Rani. Once a deed regarding adoption is registered, there is presumption of truth attached to it and it is for the person who challenges it to prove it otherwise. The appellant has not brought any evidence on record to controvert the fact that the respondent was adopted by Sukhdev Singh and Subhadra Rani since his birth. The appellant has tried to prove that the ration card which includes the name of respondent as son of Sukhdev Singh is forged one as it does not bear the signatures of Sukhdev Singh and in order to establish this the appellant has examined an Expert witness who opined that signatures of Sukhdev Singh on form D-1 do not tally with standard signatures but this fact is belied by the testimony of PW-3 who stated that ration cards were made correctly after verification and it leads to the conclusion that the ration card was correctly made and respondent was living with Sukhdev Singh and Subhadra Rani since his birth. The educational Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.3914 of 2011 (O&M) 6 certificate of respondent shows the name of his father to be Surinder Singh. On this point I am fortified with the observation made in case 2008(4) (RCR) Civil 894 (Supra) wherein it has been held that in view of Section
16 of the Adoption Act the Court has to presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved. The appellant has failed to disprove the adoption. As such, there is no illegality and perversity in the findings of learned lower Court on issue No.2 and the same are confirmed. In the light of statutory provisions the findings of learned lower Court on issue No.1 are also confirmed.
14. In view of the observations made under issue No.2, findings of learned lower Court on remaining issues are also confirmed."
Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:
1. Whether issue No.1 stating the suit to be barred under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act is wrong, irrelevant and beyond pleadings?
2. Whether a deceased person can adopt a child?
3. Whether the appellant is entitled to inherit the property of Sukhdev Singh deceased after the death of his wife Subhadra Rani?
4. Whether the appellant is entitled to own and possess the house in question as it was purchased by selling the property purchased by Sukhdev Singh?Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.3914 of 2011 (O&M) 7
5. Whether the suit of the appellant/plaintiff was required to be decreed?
At the outset, it may be noticed that admittedly Sukhdev Singh was owner of the suit property. It is further not in dispute that Subhadra Rani was his wife. It is also not in dispute that after the death of Sukhdev Singh on 02.12.1994, Subhadra Rani was entitled to inherit the suit property being the sole heir of Sukhdev Singh and she had become the absolute owner of the suit property. In view of the aforesaid fact alone, suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant in the year 2005 after the death of Subhadra Rani claiming the suit property, was not maintainable in the presence of defendant who was adopted by Sukhdev Singh and Subhadra Rani.
Though the appellant has made an effort to challenge status of the defendant, however, no challenge has been laid to the adoption deed, which is a registered document. In the presence of the aforesaid adoption deed, the appellant cannot claim any right in the suit property. Not only this, upon the death of Sukhdev Singh, Subhadra Rani had become absolute owner of the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant could not explain as to how the appellant, who is brother of her husband, could claim the property under the Hindu Succession Act.
Faced with the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant has made an attempt to argue that originally the suit property belonged to Sukhdev Singh and on his death the same devolved upon Subhadra Rani, and after the death of Subhadra Rani, the suit Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court RSA No.3914 of 2011 (O&M) 8 property shall revert back to the Legal Representative(s) of her husband Sukhdev Singh; and thus, the appellant being brother of Sukhdev Singh was entitled to the suit property, Subhadra Rani having been died issueless.
The argument raised, is misconceived. It is not in dispute that Sukhdev Singh was the absolute owner of the suit property and after his death, the same devolved upon his wife. Nothing could be pointed out before this Court on the basis of which it could be substantiated that after the death of Subhadra Rani, the property in dispute will revert back to the Legal Representative(s) of Sukhdev Singh. In fact, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the fact that under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, Subhadra Rani had become absolute owner of the suit property after the death of Sukhdev Singh.
In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the substantial questions of law, as raised, do not arise at all in this appeal and thus, the same is hereby dismissed being without any merit.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE April 22, 2014 rps Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court