Attar Singh Etc v. Jagan Nath Etc

IN T

Attar Singh and Jagan Nath and

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Ms

Mr

For

Ser

Mr

(Ap MANDEEP PA

1.

Shiv Dayal, app and respondent defendant No. passed by the le Brief Facts

2.

Bri civil suit agains declaration and appellants, Atta THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da Another

VERSUS d Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. N.C.Kinra, Mr. Harsh Kinra an s. Apoorva Kinra, Advocates for r. Pritam Singh Saini and Mr. De r respondents No.1 and 2. rvice of respondents No.3 to 5 an r. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advo ppeared through video conferenc -.-

ANNU,J. e present Regular Second Appea pellants/defendant Nos. 2 and 3 No.2/defendant No.4, and resp 1, Shanti, challenging the judgm arned Additional District Judge, ief facts, as pleaded by the plain st defendant No. 1, Shanti, and permanent injunction. During th ar Singh and Shiv Dayal, minor

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-940-2000 (O&M) served on:-01.09.2025 ate of Decision : 05.09.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU nd the appellants. eepak Singh Saini, Advocates nd 7 to 9, dispensed with. ocate for respondent No.6. cing) al has been filed by Attar Singh 3, against respondent No.1/plain pondent No. 3 to 9/legal heirs ment and decree dated 29.11.19 Rewari. ntiff - Jagannath, are that he file d defendant No. 2, Chokh Raj, he pendency of the suit, the pres sons of Jhabar, were impleaded

- ntiff s of ed a for sent

defendant Nos. as defendant No

3.

It w property belong No. 2, Chokh R Hindu family p father of the par family settlemen then, the plainti the suit property

4.

It i time of his death family settleme deceased Bansh the remaining 2 No.2. After the d entitled to only Shanti was entit

5.

It w been in possess original defenda owners of the 1 defendants had record, defendan plaintiff, feeling the rightful claim 2 and 3, thereby shifting the sta o. 4. was alleged by the plaintiff th ging to the plaintiff, his father B Raj. Bansi Dhar owned 81 kanals property of the aforesaid three rties to the suit, he had given th nt to the plaintiff and original de iff and original defendant No.2 y. is further alleged that Banshi Dh h, he was not the owner of the d ent. In case the family settleme hi Dhar was owner of only 1/3rd 2/3rd share already belonged to death of Banshi Dhar, defendant 1/3rd of the 1/3rd share of Bans tled to get only 1/9th share in the was further the case of the plaint sion of any portion of the suit ant No.2 who were in peaceful 1/9th share of defendant No.1 b no right, title or interest in the nt No.1 had been wrongly reco g aggrieved, had requested defen m of the plaintiff and defendant N

atus of defendant No. 2, Chokh R hat there was joint Hindu fam Bansi Dhar, and original defend 12 marlas of land, which was jo persons. As Banshi Dhar was he property falling to his share i efendant No.2-Chokh Raj, and si had been owners in possession har died on 29.08.1977, and at disputed property on account of ent was not established, even th d share in the disputed property the plaintiff and original defend t No.1, being a family member, w shi Dhar, and thus, defendant No e suit property. tiff that Defendant No. 1 had ne property. It was the plaintiff a l possession and had also beco by way of adverse possession. T e suit property, but in the reven orded as owner of 1/3rd share. T ndant No.1 multiple times to ad No. 2, but in vain.

- Raj, mily dant oint in a nce n of hen y, as dant o. 1 ever ome nue

6.

It w added defendan impleaded as pa newly added de defendant No. 2 expired and was

7.

Up newly added de legal heirs of de

8.

It w statement that objections regar alleged that the Dhar was owne alleged, ever to property was rig rightly succeede deserved to be d

9.

statement, also was rightly san No. 4 after the d alleged that def 1/3rd share of B Hindu family a deceased were was further pleaded that after th nts, Attar Singh and Shiv Da arties, which was allowed. When efendants were arrayed as defend 2 was arrayed as defendant No. 4 s represented through her legal h on notice, defendant No. 4 di fendants No. 2 and 3 filed their efendant No.1 filed their separate was alleged by the legal heirs o the suit was not maintainable rding cause of action and the su relationship between the parties er in possession of the entire pro ook place. It was pleaded that a ghtly succeeded by all his legal ed to 1/3rd share therein. Accor dismissed. e newly added defendant Nos. raised preliminary objections. T nctioned in favour of the plainti death of Banshi Dhar in the pres fendant No.1 had been rightly Banshi Dhar. It was also pleade and no family settlement ever inherited according to natural s

he institution of the suit, the new ayal, moved an application to n the amended plaint was filed, dant Nos. 2 and 3, whereas origi

¶4Later on, original defendant N heirs. d not put in appearance, wher separate written statement, and e written statement. of defendant No. 1 in their writ e. They further took prelimin uit being barred. On merits, it w was admitted, but deceased Ban operty and no family settlement after the death of Banshi Dhar, heirs, and original defendant N rdingly, it was prayed that the 2 and 3, in their separate writ They further alleged that mutat iff, defendant No.1, and defend sence of the plaintiff. It was furt entered as owner in possession ed that there had never been a jo took place. The properties of succession, and original defend

- wly be inal No.1 reas tten nary nshi , as No.1 suit tten tion dant ther n of oint

No.1-Shanti, be of the newly add deserved dismis

10.

the allegations c

11.

Fro

¶1per

2.

¶3filin

4.

12.

An

"3A

13.

Bot Findings of the

14.

and, after going advanced by bo favour of defe declaration and deceased Bansh The plea of own

15.

Issu of the plaintiff Accordingly, the eing owner of 1/3rd share, execu ded defendants Nos. 2 and 3. In ssal. e plaintiff filed replication to th contained therein. om the pleadings of the parties, th Whether the plaintiff is entit rmanent injunction as prayed for Whether the suit is not maint Whether the plaintiff is esto ng the present suit? OPD Relief. n Additional Issue No. 3A was al A. Whether the suit of the plaintif th the parties led their evidence. e trial Court ereafter, the learned trial Court g through the oral and docume oth the parties, decided Issue N endant No.1 by holding that permanent injunction as claime hi Dhar was rightly attested unde nership by way of adverse posses ues Nos. 2, 3, and 3A were taken and against the defendants, bei e suit of the plaintiff was dismiss

uted an agreement to sell in fav n the end, it was prayed that the he written statements, controvert he following issues were framed tled to the relief of declaration ? OPP tainable in the present form? OP opped by his act and conduct fr so framed, which reads as under iff is time barred one? OPD"

t heard the counsel for the par entary evidence and the argume No. 1 against the plaintiff and the plaintiff was not entitled d, as the mutation of inheritance er the Hindu Succession Act, 19 ssion was also rightly rejected. n up together and decided in fav ing not pressed by the defenda sed.

- vour suit ting d: D rom r: rties ents d in d to e of

¶956vour

Findings of the

16.

Fee

13.09.1996 pass Lower Appellat plaintiff Jagan Dhar, father of t and that he, alon was further ob amongst them. T no satisfactory family, and ther of deceased Ban No.2.

17.

controversy betw its devolution. It Jagan Nath had Defendant No.1 death of Banshi of Banshi Dhar, Raj got 4/9th sh

18.

Acc suit of the plaint defendant No.1-the shares as ob e Lower Appellate Court eling aggrieved by the afores sed by the learned trial Court, an te Court of the learned Additio Nath. The learned Lower App the parties, was admittedly owne ng with his sons and daughter, bserved that the property in d The learned Court also observed evidence which could establi refore, the presumption of joint H nshi Dhar and his sons, namely e learned Lower Appellate Cou ween the parties was regarding t t was held that Banshi Dhar had d 1/3rd share and original defe -Shanti, had no share prior to th Dhar, defendant No.1-Shanti, go , whereas the plaintiff – Jagan N hare each in the disputed property cordingly, the learned Lower A tiff and held that the mutation of -Shanti to the tune of 1/3rd sha served above. The appeal was, th

said judgment and decree da n appeal was filed before the learn onal District Judge, Rewari, by pellate Court observed that Ban er in possession of the disputed l constituted a joint Hindu family dispute was coparcenary prope d that in the present case, there w ish separation of the joint Hin Hindu family was stronger in fav the plaintiff and original defend urt further observed that the m the 1/3rd share of Banshi Dhar 1/3rd share initially, while plain endant No.4 also had 1/3rd sha he death of Banshi Dhar. After ot 1/9th share out of the 1/3rd sh Nath and defendant No. 2 – Cho y. Appellate Court partly decreed f inheritance attested in the name are be corrected in accordance w hus, partly allowed.

- ated ned nshi y. It erty ndu vour dant main ntiff are. hare okh e of

19.

Fee learned Lower Nos.2 and 3, na suit property on (since deceased)

20.

Up respondent No.6 Service of respo Submissions on

21.

It w and 3 that the le be joint Hindu f to prove the sa record. During h the suit property of Banshi Dhar Shanti (since d property of Ban

22.

On to sell with the for the year 198 the agreement to in the Khasra G had also been d that the parties Chulla tax, show eling aggrieved by the aforesaid Appellate Court, the present ap amely, Attar Singh and Shiv Day the basis of an agreement to sel ) regarding her 1/3rd share in the on notice, respondents No.1 and 6-Nafe Singh, chose to contest th ondents No.3 to 5 and 7 to 9, disp n behalf of the Appellants was argued by learned counsel f earned Lower Appellate Court ha family and coparcenary property ame. No excerpt prepared by th his lifetime, Banshi Dhar had b y by mortgaging his land. Exhib r after his death, which shows deceased), and original defendan shi Dhar in equal shares, i.e., 1/3 n the basis of her 1/3rd share, Sh appellants. Her 1/3rd share is re 81–82. Subsequent Jamabandis a o sell, the father of the appellant Girdawaris (Ex.D2 and D5) and delivered by Shanti Devi to the were not living together, as the wing that they were living separa

judgment and decree passed by ppeal has been filed by defend yal. They claim their interest in l allegedly executed by Shanti D e suit property. d 2-Jagan Nath and Chokh Raj he present Regular Second App pensed with. for the appellants/defendant Nos ad wrongly held the suit property , whereas no such evidence was he revenue officials had come een dealing with his 1/3rd share bit P2 is the mutation of inherita that the plaintiff, defendant No nt No. 2 Chokh Raj inherited 3rd share each. hanti had entered into an agreem eflected in the Jamabandi (Ex. D also reflect the same position. A ts, Jhabar, was shown in possess d Girdawari (Ex.D4), as possess vendees. It was further conten e sons of Banshi Dhar were pay ately.

- dant Devi eal. s. 2 y to led on e in ance o.1-ment D1) After sion sion ded

23.

It w Appellate Cour inheritance on recorded in the correct, legal, a appeal filed by t Submissions on

24.

On (plaintiff and L regarding the m the legal heirs have acquired in sell alleged to h property. Howe title.

25.

It w for specific perf claim their right the devolution appellants had n same was liable Findings

26.

Hav record, this Cou admitted positio Appellate Court was argued that the impugned rt was illegal, perverse, and wi the basis of natural succession e revenue record. The judgmen and based on due appreciation the appellants deserve to be acce n behalf of the respondents n the other hand, learned coun LR No. 6 of Shanti) argued th maintainability of the appeal file of Banshi Dhar, whose propert nterest and right in the property have been executed by Shanti re ever, it was argued that an agre was further pointed out that the formance, which had been adjou ts in that suit for specific perform of the share of Banshi Dhar no locus standi to file the pres to be dismissed on this sole grou ving heard learned counsel for t urt is of the view that the prese on is that the impugned judgmen t partly decreed the suit of the p

d judgment of the learned Low ithout any basis. The mutation n had been rightly sanctioned nt of the learned trial Court w of evidence and law. Hence, epted. nsel for respondents No. 1 and hat the only contention raised w ed by the appellants, who were ty was in dispute. They alleged y on the basis of one agreement egarding her 1/3rd share in the eement to sell does not confer appellants had already filed a urned sine die. The appellants co mance, but they could not challen r upon his legal heirs. Since sent appeal, it was argued that und. the parties and after considering ent appeal is not maintainable. T nt and decree of the learned Low plaintiff Jagan Nath by reducing

- wer n of d 2 not d to t to suit any suit ould nge

share of Shanti go to the plainti after her demise said judgment a Shanti or her le Shiv Dayal, who sell said to have

27.

Thi respondents reg right, or interest at best entitles t a suit for speci already filed su therein and not legal heirs.

28.

It i inheritance of p strangers claimi have stepped in sell. They have by the learned L legal heirs of Ba

29.

property was no rightly sanction Devi from 1/3rd to 1/9th, holdin iff and original defendant No. 2 e her legal representatives, who c and decree. The present appea egal representatives. Instead, it o claim themselves to be purchas e been executed by Shanti Devi. is Court finds merit in the o arding locus standi. An agreeme t in the immovable property. It is he agreement holder to seek enf fic performance. The appellant uch a suit, which has been adjo in challenging the devolution of is well settled in law that the roperty can only be contested by ing through an agreement to sel nto the shoes of Shanti Devi me no independent right to assail th Lower Appellate Court, as the di anshi Dhar. e contention raised by learned ot joint Hindu family/coparcena ed, is of no avail to them, since

ng that the remaining shares wo

¶2Thus, it was only Shanti Devi could be said to be aggrieved by al, however, has not been filed has been filed by Attar Singh sers on the basis of an agreemen objection raised on behalf of ent to sell does not confer any ti s only an executory contract, wh forcement of the contract by way s themselves admit that they h ourned sine die. Their remedy f the share of Banshi Dhar upon dispute regarding succession y the legal heirs inter se and not ll. The appellants cannot be said erely by virtue of an agreement he correctness of the shares allot ispute is purely inter se between counsel for the appellants that ary property, and that mutation w e they lack locus standi to quest

- ould , or by nt to itle, hich y of have lies his t by d to t to tted

the findings. On enter into the me

30.

Rel instance of a pe to the family, cl the distribution The appellants performance, bu Conclusion

31.

Acc filed by the app and is, hereby, d

32.

Pen

September 05, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh nce it is held that they are not ag erits of their arguments. liance is placed on the settled erson who is not an aggrieved pa laiming only on the basis of an of shares of coparcenary or joint are at liberty to pursue the ut they cannot maintain the prese cordingly, this Court holds that t pellants, the persons who have n dismissed. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

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

ggrieved persons, this Court can d principle that an appeal at arty is not maintainable. A stran agreement to sell, cannot challen t family property amongst the he eir independent suit for spec ent appeal. the present Regular Second App no locus standi, is not maintaina stands disposed off. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- nnot nger nge eirs. cific eal,