Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Plaintiff Smt. Santosh Kumari is the wife of Sh. Ch. Dube Singh of village Kurar. Defendant No. 1 is Ch. Sube Singh himself while defendant No. 2 Ajay Chaudhary and defendant No. 3 Sanjay Chaudhary are the sons of Ch. Sube Singh. On 8.4.1991, Smt. Santosh Kumari filed suit for declaration against Ch. Sube Singh and his two sons Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Chaudhary whereby she prayed that decree dated 12.3.1991 vide which 67 kanal 5 marlas of land detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint situated in village Nangal Khurd, Tehsil and District Sonepat was transferred in the name of the defendants in almost equal shares, be annulled. It is alleged in the plaint that she was the owner of land measuring 67 kanal 5 niarla situated in village Nangal Khurd, Tehsil and District Sonepat. Since sometime past, Ch. Sube Singh became more favourably disposed towards his elder son Ajay Chaudhary. He wanted larger share of IPS Research and Breeding Farm to his elder son Ajay Chaudhary. She was insisting upon both Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Chaudhary being given equal share so that there was no jerk to the peace and harmony in the family in future. Defendant Ch. Sube Singh began nursing ill-will towards her as he was not approving that both the sons be given equal share in TPS Research and Breeding Farm. He started beating her, torturing her in different ways and imputing unchastity to her. She and Ch. Sube. Singh were away to Putaparti. There arose great upror between them. After they returned from Putaparti, she was virtually kept captive in her own house since 17.2.1991. She was threatened to part with the land in their name or else she would be done to death. On the right of 1st March, 1991 her neck was pressed in order to kill her. She raised hue and cry. Her sons Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Chaudhary came to her rescue and freed her from the clutches of Ch. Sube Singh. On 2.3.1991, Ch. Sube Singh's sister came. She was kept on her watch and she was instructed that she should not be allowed to be freed from her captivity till she agreed to part with her land. She (Smt. Santosh Kumari) was also threatened that if she did not agree to part with the land, she would be shot dead. Sanjay Chaudhary defendant was also threatened that if she did not agree to make statement in court parting with the land, he would be shot dead. On 7.3.1991, Ch. Sube Singh brought her to Sonepat courts saying that they had filed some suit, she should make statement in the suit as per their desire. At that time also gun and cartridges were lying in the van. She Ajay Chaudhary, Sanjay Chaudhary an Ch. Sube Singh's sister were left in the van by Ch. Sube Singh and himself went to some Advocate. After some time, he brought some Munshi near the van and got her signatures on some papers. She had not known any Advocate at Sonepat. One Ram Sarup Rana, Advocate was told to be her- counsel in that suit while Shri Jawahar Lal Rana, Advocate was told to be the counsel of the defendants in that suit. Ram Sarup Rama and Jawahar Lal Rana were told to be father and son practising together. Every thing done in that suit was done by S/Shri Ram Sarup Rana and Jawahar Lal Rana in conspiracy with Ch. Sube Singh. Thereafter, she was taken to the Court of Sh. Pruthi, Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat. Her signatures were taken on some statement without asking her anything. On 11.3.1991 she was taken to the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Sonepat by Ch. Sube Singh. At that time also, there was gun lying in the van. His elder son Ajay Chaudhary was also with him. Naib Tehsildar came to the van and asked her, her name etc. She was asked if she had any objection. As she was frightened, she accepted everything. On 21.3.1991, she came to the court alongwith her brother for knowing what exactly had taken place. She came to know that Ch. Sube Singh had got suit filed by himself, his sons Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Chaudhary against her for declaration in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat on 12.3.1991 of misstating facts and had obtained therein though the fact of the matter is that no family settlement had even taken place. If no family settlement had taken place, there was no question of her having refused to acknowledge that family settlement for its being given effect to. If she wanted, she could part with that property in favour of her sons by sale or by means of gift. Ch. Sube Singh got land measuring 67 kanal 5 marla settled through a fictitious decree on the basis of fictitious settlement which never took place. She got nothing on the basis of the so called family settlement. Sajay Chaudhary got inferior part of the property. That decree dated 12.3.1991 has no effect so far as her rights are concerned. It is null and void, it required registration as the value of the property involved was lacs of rupees. In the absence of registration no right, title or interest in the property vested in Ch. Sube Singh etc. defendants. In the plaint of that suit, false facts had been pleaded that the property was ancestral of the parties. In other words she was only benami owner of the property. Decree was hit by Section 4 of the Benami Transaction and Prohibition Act, 1988. Decree was obtained by practising coercion and undue influence upon her. She and the defendants have been working together at TPS Research and Breeding Farm. On 12.1.1991, a fictitious lease deed was got executed from her under threat. It is stated that the decree dated 12.3.1991 is illegal, null and void and is not binding upon her rights. Similarly, pattanama dated 12.1.1991 got executed from her by Ch. Sube Singh by fraud is also null and void.

3. Defendant No. 2 Ajay Chaudhary also contested the suit, it was urged that this suit is barred under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as no suit lies to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise decree was not lawful. Plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct from challenging the decree. Plaintiff on her own made statement on oath before the Court admitting the suit of the defendants and it was on her statement on oath, which was read over to her and admitted by her to be correct, that the civil court at Sonepat passed decree in favour of the defendants in suit No. 219 of 1991 decided on 12.3.1991. It was admitted that she was owner of the suit property but she had ceased to be the owner of the suit property prior to the date of filing of this suit, she having already parted with the suit property in their favour by means of decree suffered by her in civil suit No. 219 of 1991 decided on 12.3.1991. It was denied that Sube Singh was drawn more favourably and affectionately towards him (Ajay Chaudhary) vis-a-vis Sanjay Chaudhary. In fact, after the marriage of Sanjay Chaudhary, some loan was advanced by Sh. Sube Singh to Sanjay Chaudhary's father-in-law. Ch. Sube Singh asked for the repayment of that loan amount. Smt. Santosh Kumari and Sanjay Chaudhary's wife protested. Smt. Santosh Kumari is playing in the hands of Sanjay Chaud-hary's wife and is inimical to him (Ajay Chaudhary). His (Ajay Chaudhary's) wife was not to the liking to Smt. Santosh Kumari and she even tried with him (Ajay Chaudhary) to divorce his wife. She got petition for divorce filed by him against his wife. Wisdom dawned on him and his wife and the matter was compromised and the divorce averted. It was not to the liking of Smt. Santosh Kumari that compromise took place between them and the divorce averted. Sanjay Chaudhary and his wife became jealous of him because his wife comes of a family which is family very well off vis-a-vis Sanjay Chaudhary's wife's family. After the marriage of Sanjay Chaudhary, Sanjay Chaudhary's wife was inciting Smt. Santosh Kumari against him and his wife. It was urged that this suit has been got filed by Sanjay Chaudhary and his wife. It was also urged that Ch. Sube Singh is also in league with Smt. Santosh Kumari in the filing of this suit which is intended to prejudice his rights. In fact, the decree was passed at the instance of the plaintiff who suffered statement of her free will and volition in sound disposing mind without any coercion, undue influence or fraud. In fact, she wanted the property to be given to her sons in equal shares and this is what has been done. Both the counsel were engaged simultaneously by the parties. They were engaged by the plaintiff and Ch. Sube Singh in consultation with each other as a consent decree was to be passed. It was denied that there was any altercation between the parties on 17.2.1991 or any threat was meted out to the plaintiff. It was denied that on 1.3.1991, defendant No. 1 tried to strangulate the plaintiff or that she was saved by her sons. In fact, the sister of Ch. Sube Singh came to Murthal. In her presence also, the plaintiff admitted that she would suffer a decree in favour of the defendants but no threat was meted out to her. She had thorough discussion with the counsel with regard to the details of the property which was to be given to each of the defendants and after full satisfaction, she signed the written statement and then the statement which was recorded before the Court. Court made detailed enquiries from her and after due satisfaction, decree was passed. As the plaint was got dictated by the plaintiff and it was for the counsel to make due inquiries whether the land was ancestral or not, it made little difference whether the land was ancestral or non ancestral. Plaintiff was absolute owner of the suit property and she could dispose it of in any manner she liked. It was denied that any question of benami arose between the parties or it was ever alleged that it was ever benami, in fact it could have been that the land was purchased from the neucleus of the Joint Hindu Family.

6. Ajay Chaudhary went in appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide order dated 30.5.1998. Still not satisfied. Ajay Chaudhary has come up in further appeal in this court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following questions of law for the consideration of this Court.

1. Whether the decree dated 12.3.1991 passed in civil suit No. 219 of 1991 did not require registration?

2. Whether decree dated 12.3.1991 could be challenged without challenging the family settlement Ex.D1?