Prem Chand and Ors v. Ram Lal and Ors

IN T

Prem Chand and Ram Lal and Ot

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

for MANDEEP PA

1.

Lal, sons of Na agricultural land Thanesar, Distri Brief Facts

2.

Chand (their bro in dispute was

13.06.1984, Nan in favour of def THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da d Others

VERSUS thers

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Sr. Advoc r. Akshay Jindal, Mr.Vijayveer S r. Pankaj Gautam, Advocates for r. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate, r. Deepak Saini and Ms. Vamika the respondents. -.-

ANNU,J. e plaintiffs/respondents No.1 an and Lal, instituted the suit for d d measuring 36 kanals 1 marla ict Kurukshetra. e plaintiffs pleaded that they, other) and other heirs, constituted ancestral property in the han nd Lal had suffered a consent de fendant no.1 (Prem Chand) and

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2330-1993 (O&M) served on:-21.08.2025 ate of Decision : 01.09.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU cate with Singh and the appellants. Johar, Advocates nd 2 (herein), Sham Lal and R declaration and joint possession situated in village Kirmach, Teh along with defendant No.1 Pr d a joint Hindu family, and the l nds of their father, Nand Lal. ecree in Civil Suit No. 729 of 19 his minor sons (defendants nos.

- Ram n of hsil rem On . 2–

4). Nand Lal, be without legal ne binding upon th cultivate their sh dated 13.06.198 possession of th

3.

relationship but was the absolu contended that t pleaded that as rather than Hind 4,

Fro

¶1Sui of t

¶2are

¶3lan

4.

¶5suit

¶6wh eing a coparcener, was not comp ecessity. The decree was theref he plaintiffs. Defendant no.1 w hares in the land. The plaintiffs 84 be set aside and that they be d he land. e contesting defendants No.1 to denied the ancestral nature of th ute owner and competent to al the decree of 1984 was the resul agriculturists, the parties were du law. om the pleadings of the parties, f Whether the judgment and it No. 729 of 1984 are illegal, v the plaintiff and are liable to be s Whether the defendants No. owners in equal shares in the su Whether the plaintiffs are en nd as alleged? OPP Whether the suit is not maint Whether the plaintiffs have t? OPD Whether the plaintiffs have c hat effect? OPD

petent to alienate the ancestral l fore illegal, null and void, and was interfering with their right sought a declaration that the dec declared co-owners entitled to jo 4/appellants No.1 to 4 admitted he property, asserting that Nand lienate the property. They furt lt of a family settlement. It was a e governed by agricultural cust following issues were framed decree dated 13.06.1984 in C void, ineffective against the inter set aside? OPP .1,5 and 6 along with the plaint uit land? OPP ntitled to the possession of the tainable in the present form? OP no locus standi to file the pres concealed the material facts, if so

- not t to cree oint Lal ther also tom Civil rest tiffs suit D sent

7.

8.

5.

In adduced by the p

¶6To on revenue reco

i) (19 Ex. 2) (Kh

7.

Pla these documents Murli, son of Ra of his sons inc proceedings, Na that the consiste through generat the hands of Nan

¶8The defen case. Findings of the

9.

On mutation record Whether the plaintiffs have n Relief. order to prove their case, foll parties. establish the ancestral nature o ords: Pedigree Table Ex. P1, Jama 963–64), Ex. P8 (1967–68), Ex. . P11 (1982–83). Ex. PW2/A (Intkhab), Ex. P hatoni Istemal) prepared by the r aintiffs by leading the above sai s demonstrated the chain of title am Narain. After Murli's death, cluding Nand Lal. By success and Lal came to own a ½ share o ent entries in the revenue record tions by inheritance and therefor nd Lal. ndants did not produce any doc e Trial Court n the question of ancestral chara ds, the court held that the land ha

no cause of action? OPD owing documentary evidence w of the property, the plaintiffs rel abandies Ex. P6 (1956–57), Ex. P9 (1972–73), Ex. P10 (1977–7 PX (Khatauni Pamais), and Ex. revenue authorities. id evidence has tried to prove t . Land was recorded in the name the property was mutated in fav sive inheritance and consolidat of 36 kanals 1 marla (18 kanals) ds reflected that the land had pas re retained its ancestral characte cumentary evidence to prove th acter, based on the Jamabandi ad devolved by inheritance throu

- was lied P7 78), PY that e of vour tion ssed r in heir

the family line contention that i

10.

On the property wa necessity. As n illegal, null and

11.

Lea defendant no.1 as co-owners in maintainability, favour of the pla Findings of the

12.

Lea (Jamabandi Ex. reaffirmed that property. The p disbelieved. No

¶13Wh Court modified defendant no.1, daughters (defen the law then pre

14.

appeal was dism and was thus ancestral proper it was self-acquired was rejected n the issue of consent decree of 1 as ancestral, Nand Lal was not c no such necessity was proved, void, and not binding on the pla arned trial Court, finally dec (Prem Chand) and defendants n n equal shares and entitled to locus standi, concealment, and aintiffs. The suit was accordingly e Lower Appellate Court arned Additional District Judge P1–P11, Khatauni Istemal Ex. the property came down by in plea that the decree of 1984 rep cogent evidence was led in supp hile affirming the trial Court's m the decree to the extent that on and defendants nos. 2 to 4) w ndants nos. 5 & 6) were exclud evailing. e decree dated 13.06.1984 was d missed with costs.

rty in the hands of Nand Lal. T d. 1984 trial Court observed that si competent to alienate without le the consent decree was decla aintiffs. clared the plaintiffs, along w nos. 5 & 6 (daughters of Nand L joint possession. Issues regard d cause of action were decided y decreed. e reconsidered the revenue reco PX, Intkhab Ex. PW2/A, etc.) a nheritance, and thus was ances presented a family settlement w port. main findings, the lower Appell nly coparceners by birth (plainti were entitled as joint owners. T ded from coparcenary rights un declared illegal, null and void. T

- nce egal ared with Lal), ding d in ords stral was late iffs,

15.

Fee by the lower co was filed before nature of the pro Findings of the

16.

Thi Appellate Court proved by PW2 accepted this as decreed the plain

¶17This which require th a) b) orig c) orig

18.

the present case court compared not be treated as

19.

presumption is eling aggrieved by the above sa ourts with concurrent findings, t e this Court by the defendants N operty e High Court in RSA vide judge is Court noted that both the learn t had relied upon the Intkhab/Ex 2 Hira Lal, Muharrir Patwari. B s sufficient to prove the ances ntiffs' suit. Court then reproduced Rules (v hat: An excerpt should be a true c The Special Kanungo or P ginal record to court for compa correctness of the excerpt. The court should, as a rul ginal record by checking certain e Court held that these requirem e. PW2 had not produced the or the excerpt with it. In the absen s admissible evidence. e Court emphasized that in case in favour of land being non-a

aid judgements and decrees pas the present Regular Second App No.1 to 4/appellants Nos.1 to 4, ement dated24.07.2014 ned trial Court and the learned F xcerpt Ex. PW2/A, which had b Both the learned lower Courts h stral character of the property a

v) and (vi) of Chapter 9, Volum copy and proved as such. Patwari Muharrir must bring arison, be put on oath, and conf le, compare the excerpt with entries. ments had not been complied with riginal revenue record, nor had nce of such proof, Ex. PW2/A co es of alleged ancestral property, ancestral unless proved otherw

- ssed peal , on First een had me I, firm h in ould

Since the plaint accordance with

20.

Acc prove that the p suffered the dec was allowed, an aside.

¶21It Rajinder Kaur 2015, arising ou for formulating Subsequent pr

22.

As substantial ques Sub

¶1wh pro of t evi

¶2of alie tiffs had failed to establish the h the Rules, they could not succe cordingly, this Court conclude property in dispute was ancestral cree dated 30.06.1984 in favour o nd the judgments and decrees is relevant to mention here tha and Others Vs. Rajesh and O ut of SLP (C) No. 28053 of 201 a substantial question of law. roceedings per the directions of the H tion of law, the following substa bstantial Questions of Law Whether, without producing hich the excerpt (Intkhab) is pr ocedure prescribed under Rules ( the High Court Rules and Order dence? Whether property inherited f ancestral/coparcenary property enation of the holder under Hind

ancestral nature of the property eed. d that the plaintiffs had failed l in the hands of Nand Lal when of defendants nos. 1 to 4. The R of both the courts below were at The Hon'ble Supreme Court Others, Civil Appeal No. 5890 14, remitted the case to High Co Hon'ble Supreme Court to fra antial questions of law framed:- g the original revenue record fr repared and without following

(v) and (vi) of Chapter 9, Volum rs, such excerpt can be admitted from a female retains the charac y, so as to restrict the power du law?

- y in d to n he RSA set t in 0 of ourt ame rom me I d in cter

¶3suc

23.

It i for additional ev Regular Second

¶24The l land measuring and the same c urged that the c ancestral in char

25.

It w the plaintiffs ha proved in accord were liable to be

¶26The merely produce itself could not had attached und

¶27Att Nand Lal, had ownership and p to press the suit proceeded to de Whether, after making a stat plaintiffs can still pursue the ch statement with the permission is pertinent to mention here tha vidence under order 41 Rule 27 d Appeal along with the applicati learned counsel for the appellan 18 kanals 1½ marlas had been p ontinued to remain unpartitione courts below had erred in presu racter. was next argued that all the doc ad been tendered only through dance with law. On this ground e set aside. counsel further submitted that ed Mutation Ex. PW2/A. Such establish the ancestral character due weight to it. tention was also invited to the f made a statement before the partition between the parties and . Despite such a categorical adm cree the suit, which was wholly

tement to withdraw the suit, one suit without formally withdraw n of the Court? at respondent moved an applicat CPC. Arguments were heard in on under order 41 Rule 27 CPC. nts submitted that in the year 19 purchased by the sons of Nand L ed amongst them. It was theref uming that the entire suit land w cuments which were relied upon their counsel, without being d alone, the findings of the trial co PW2 Heera Lal, the Patwari, h a document, it was contended, r of the land, and the courts bel fact that plaintiff Sham Lal, son learned Civil Judge admitting d further stating that he did not w mission, it was argued, the trial co unjustified.

- e of wing tion . 965, Lal, fore was n by duly ourt had by low n of wish

¶28The Narain, was rec 1922–23, he al Chetu. Thus, the On this basis, it was ancestral in

¶29It w thereafter devolv after consolidat court, however, Nand Lal.

¶30He fu on the death of two surviving b of Nand Lal co about 9 kanals.

¶31for property to shown to have revenue record m declaring it ance

32.

Las assumption of fr and only issue, Lal could in law e learned counsel further pointed orded as owner of 10 bighas 17 lso obtained 11 bighas 5 biswa e total land reflected in Murli's t was argued that the finding of n the hands of Nand Lal, was who was next contended that the s ved upon Ram Rikh, Salag Ram tion in 1946–47, was converted , fell into error in holding that further urged that even if the prop f Salag Ram unmarried and inte rothers, namely Ram Rikh and N ould not have been the entire 3 e learned counsel also pressed th be regarded as ancestral in the descended from at least three g merely traced it to Murli Dhar, a estral. stly, it was urged that the trial fraud, whereas no fraud had in fa it was submitted, was whether w be treated as ancestral, which,

d out that Murli Dhar, son of R 7 biswas of land in 1904–05, and as from Prashani Devi, widow name came to 22 bighas 2 bisw the courts below, that the prope olly erroneous. said land of 22 bighas 2 bisw m and Nand Lal in equal shares, d into 36 kanals 1 marla. The t the entire land was ancestral perty was to be treated as ancest estate, his share devolved upon Nand Lal. Thus, the effective sh 6 kanals 1 marla, but at best o he argument that under settled l hands of a coparcener, it must generations. In the present case, and hence the courts below erred l court wrongly proceeded on act been proved on record. The r the property in the hands of N , according to the appellants, co

- Ram d in w of was. erty was trial qua tral, hare only aw, t be d in real

not be sustained evidence, as the accordance with Daya Nand (20 is in favour of contrary that it i

33.

Con had categoricall record, and that examine on th documentary ev that the property No. 6525-C of 2 the original reve

34.

As (Intkhab), it was dated 24.07.201 terms of Rules Hon'ble Suprem Civil Appeal No for fresh adjudic

35.

It w 6525-C of 2024 Kanungo or Pa PW-2/A was pre d. It was further contended tha e original record was never prod h the mandatory Rules. Relianc 010 (2) PLR 567), to contend tha the land being non-anecestral u is ancestral. nversely, learned counsel for th ly deposed that he prepared the e t the appellants, though afforde his point. Both courts below, vidence including Jamabandis an y was ancestral. He further conte 2024 under Order 41 Rule 27 C enue record from which Ex. PW2 regards the appellants' obje s submitted that although this Ho 4 (RSA 2330 of 1993) had held

(v) and (vi) of Chapter 9, Vo me Court in Rajinder Kaur an o. 5890 of 2015 had set aside tha cation on substantial questions o was pointed out that the respond 4 for permission to lead additi atwari Muharrir may produce th epared, thereby curing any techn

at Ex. PW2/A was inadmissible duced nor compared by the Cour ce was placed on Hawa Singh at it is well settled that presumpt unless and until it is proved to he respondents submitted that PW excerpt after consulting the origi ed opportunity, chose not to cro , after appreciation of oral nd pedigree table, concurrently h ended that they have also filed C CPC seeking permission to prod 2/A was prepared ection to proof of Ex. PW-2 on'ble Court in its earlier judgm d that the excerpt was not proved ol. I of the High Court Rules, nd Others Vs. Rajesh and Othe at judgment and remitted the ma f law. dents have already moved CM N ional evidence so that the Spe he original record from which nical defect.

- e in rt in h v. tion W2 inal oss-held CM duce 2/A ment d in ers, atter No. cial

36.

Fin the Hon'ble Sup by the courts b and family tree, with costs. Findings of this

37.

Bot entries, mutation

38.

plaintiffs co-ow

39.

Lea was ancestral a excluding daugh coparceners by b

40.

As (Intkhab), it was dated 24.07.201 terms of Rules Hon'ble Suprem v. Rajesh & Or adjudication on

41.

share devolved u in favour of Na Chand, as refle nally, it was prayed that since the preme Court for fresh decision, elow, being based on correct a were liable to be upheld, and th s court th the lower Courts attached g ns, and consolidation records pre e trial court decreed the suit, dec wners entitled to joint possession arned lower Appellate Court aff and that the decree was void hters (defendants 5 & 6) from th birth. regards the appellants' obje s submitted that although this Ho 4 (RSA 2330 of 1993) had held

(v) and (vi) of Chapter 9, Vo me Court in Civil Appeal No. 589 rs.) had set aside that judgment substantial questions of law. e counsel emphasized that Sala upon his son Ram Sarup, and R and Lal and his three sons, nam ected in Ex. P/10 and Ex. P/1

e matter has now been remanded the judgments and decrees pas appreciation of the revenue reco he present appeal deserved dismis great importance to the jamaba epared by revenue authorities. claring the decree of 1984 void along with other heirs. firmed the finding that the prope d, but modified the judgment he coparcenary, restricting rights ection to proof of Ex. PW-2 on'ble Court in its earlier judgm d that the excerpt was not proved ol. I of the High Court Rules, 90 of 2015 (Rajinder Kumar & O t and remitted the matter for fr g Ram died issueless, Ram Rik Ram Sarup later sold his entire sh mely Sham Lal, Ram Lal and Pr

¶1In this way, the plaintiffs

- d by ssed ords ssal andi erty by s to 2/A ment d in but Ors. resh kh's hare

defendants stood 1 marla.

42.

It w ancestral in the on the basis of i concurrently fou having been suf

43.

the suit land, the for the years 19 (Ex. P/9), 197 (Intkhab), Khata that a perusal o 1904–05, and th and defendants

44.

Hav am of the view matter. Rules (v Orders mandate must be produc excerpt must be

45.

Ho Gangabai & Or under:- d recorded as owners of the con was further urged that the record hands of Nand Lal. The plaintiff inheritance, and both the trial co und that the property was ances ffered by Nand Lal without comp e learned counsel pointed out th e plaintiffs had produced the Pe 956–57 (Ex. P/6), 1963–64 (Ex. 7–78 (Ex. P/10), 1982–83 (E auni Pamais Ex. PX, and Khata of these records confirmed that he land was thus coparcenary pr ving heard counsel for the parti w that the first substantial quest

v) and (vi) of Chapter 9, Volu e that when excerpts are tendere ced for comparison by the Co examined on oath. These requir wever, the Hon'ble Supreme rs. Civil Appeal No.6731 of 20

nsolidated land measuring 36 kan ds consistently reflected the land ffs filed the suit claiming their sh ourt and the first appellate court h stral. The decree dated 13.06.19 petence, was therefore, set aside. hat to prove the ancestral nature digree Table (Ex. P/1), Jamaban P/7), 1967–68 (Ex. P/8), 1972– Ex. P/11), Mutation Ex. PW-2 auni Istemal Ex. PY and submit Murlidhar was in possession si roperty descending to the plaint ies and perused the entire recor ion of law goes to the root of ume I of the High Court Rules ed in evidence, the original rec ourt and the official preparing rements were not adhered to. Court in Sambhaji & Ors. 008, decided on 20.11.2008 held

- nals d as hare had 984,

e of ndis –73 2/A tted ince tiffs d, I s & cord v.

"11 ove rule jus to a who as m pro ma pen alte mo ma to j of j

¶12obs han adm

46.

Ord allowed if:

(a) bee

(b) cau

¶1The processual law so dom erpower substantive rights and e that procedure should be the h tice compels consideration of ve act ex debito justitiae where the olly inequitable. Justice is the much as substantive. No person ocedure. He has only the righ nner for the time being by or f nding, and if, by an Act of Par ered, he has no other right than de. A procedural law should ndatory, the procedural law is a justice. Any interpretation whic justice is not to be followed.

Procedural law is not to b struction but an aid to justic ndmaid and not the mistress, a ministration of justice." der 41 Rule 27 CPC provides the trial court has refused to ad en admitted; or the party seeking to produce ev use from producing it; or

minates in certain systems as substantial justice. The human handmaid, not the mistress, of le esting a residuary power in Jud e tragic sequel otherwise would goal of jurisprudence, processu n has a vested right in any course t of prosecution or defence in for the Court in which the case rliament the mode of procedure to proceed according to the alte d not ordinarily be construed always subservient to and is in ch eludes or frustrates the recipi be a tyrant but a servant, not e. A procedural prescription a lubricant, not a resistant in s that additional evidence may dmit evidence which ought to h vidence was prevented by suffici

- s to nist egal dges d be ual, e of e is e is ered as aid ient an n is be have

(c)

47.

In original record f but is essential t of law on admis

48.

On admissibility of record for comp not followed, ad CM No. 6525-C produce the ori deserves to be a

49.

As whether propert one plaintiff's st permission, the received on the Conclusion

¶50In view o

1. CM

¶2the original rev cross-examinati Thereafter, to re this additional e the appellate court requires such the present case, the evidence from which Ex. PW2/A was prep to decide the real controversy. W ssibility cannot be answered conc n the first substantial question of f Ex. PW2/A (Intkhab). The rule parison before excerpts can be a dditional evidence is necessary. C of 2024 under Order 41 Rul iginal revenue record. In the i allowed. regards the second and third su ty inherited from a female is a tatement to withdraw the suit bin findings shall be given only character of suit. f the discussion made herein-abo M No. 6525-C of 2024 under Ord e case is remitted to the learned enue record from which Ex. PW on of the revenue official and r ecord findings afresh on the char evidence.

h evidence to pronounce judgme e sought is the production of pared and was not produced earl Without this, the substantial quest clusively. f law, the controversy relates to es require production of the origi admitted. Since this procedure w The plaintiffs have already mov le 27 CPC, seeking permission interest of justice, this applicat ubstantial questions of law, name ancestral/coparcenary, and whet nds the other plaintiff without co after the report of the trial co ove, the following order is passe der 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed. d trial Court to permit production W2/A was prepared and then all rebuttal evidence by the appella racter of the suit property in ligh

- nt. lier, tion inal was ved n to tion ely, ther ourt ourt d:- n of low nts.

¶3Sub preferably from

¶4It i not set aside at Court.

¶5after receipt of t

¶6It is recording additi

¶7Lis

September 01, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh bmit a report with evidence t the date of receipt of copy of thi s clarified that the judgments an this stage. They shall remain in e answers to the substantial que the trial court's report. s clarified that the matter is remi onal evidence and report. st for final hearing thereafter. 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

to this Court within five mon is order. nd decrees of the Courts below ntact until final adjudication by t stions of law will be recorded o itted only for the limited purpose MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- ths, are this only