Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

 The five properties that were made the subject matter of the suit for partition were:-

(a) Barota Land (72 acres approx. with farmhouse)

(b) Agriculture land – 11 acres at Kalupur, Sonepat

(c) 8 Bigha of Dairy Plot at Sonepat

(d) Bhatgaon Land (30 acres of houses, outhouses and orchard)

(e) C-38, Anand Niketan, New Delhi.

4. The pedigree table of the family, for quick reference is as under:

Major General Budh Singh (died on 08.11.1988) Son (Anup Singh) Daughter (Saroj Salkan) Daughter (Sharda Hooda) (died on 18.08.1989) [Appellant-Plaintiff] [R-6] Wife Son Son Daughter Daughter Daughter (Sneh Lata) (Sanjeev Singh) (Rajeev Singh) (Renu Singh) (Madhu Eggbert ) (Anju Singh) Died in (died) [R-2] [R-3] [R-4] [R-5] June 2004 Wife (Uma Singh) [R-1]

(vi) So far as the land situated at Barota, Sonepat is concerned and with respect to which the case of the defendant is that late Gen. Budh Singh died leaving behind his Will dated 3.11.1987 and this Will is disputed by the plaintiff, I need not examine the merits of the matter because the suit land is situated at Sonepat, Haryana and therefore in view of Section 16 CPC, suit for this land at Barota, Sonepat on the cause of action that father was the exclusive owner of this property and who died intestate and hence plaintiff as a legal heir will inherit a share in the properties of the father will have to be dealt with and decided by the competent court at Sonepat, Haryana.”

20. In any event, he submitted that the Appellant-plaintiff and Respondent No.6 should have been given an opportunity to explain the alleged admissions in Suit II during the trial of the present case.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2

21. At the outset, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.2 contended that no cause of action had arisen qua properties at Kalupur, Bhatgaon land and dairy plot at Sonepat, as they do not exist. He pointed out that the plaint did not disclose any details or exact description and area cross referencing with revenue/municipal records with respect to land at Kalupur and dairy plot at Sonepat.

2. That the defendant in the year 1972 on 24.3.72 alongwith the sons of Anup Singh Sanjeev Singh and Rajeev Singh filed a declaratory suit against the plaintiff in the court of Sub Judge, Sonepat and the above said land detailed in para No.1 if the land was declared the ownership of the defendants whereas the said land was owned and possessed by the plaintiff at that time and now also the said land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint continuous to be owned and possessed by the plaintiff because the said decree of the Sub Judge Sonepat dated 7.4.72 was not accepted by the Collector surplus and the land detailed in para No.1 was assessed and calculated in the area of the plaintiff. The said decree was declared collusive between the parties and under the eyes of law as provided under sections 8 and 12 of the Haryana Land Ceiling Act the above said transfer under the decree does not effect the rights of the original owner i.e the plaintiff and the plaintiff continues to be owner in possession of the said land.