Sajjan Singh Dhillon v. Thandi Ram and Ors

IN T

Whether only oper Pronounced or the

Lt. Colonal Sajj Maj. Thandi Ram

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

For

MANDEEP PA

1.

Pre findings record judgment and d Judge, Hisar vid the plaintiff for Brief Facts

2.

documents plac share of the hou red colour in th THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re

Pro

Up rative part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced:

an Singh Dhillon

VERSUS m and Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the r. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate a r. Rahul and Mr. Munish Sharma r the respondents. -.-

ANNU, J. esent RSA has been filed by the ded by the learned Civil Jud decree dated 10.12.1999 and b de judgment and decree dated 23 declaration has been dismissed. e case set up by the plaintiff, ed on record, is that the plaintif use constructed over Plot No.1, he site plan. It is pleaded that th

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2098-2001 (O&M) served on:-02.12.2025 onounced on : 03.12.2025 ploaded on:- 04.12.2025 operative part/full judgment

....Appellant

....Respondents DEEP PANNU e appellant. assisted by a, Advocates plaintiff challenging the concurr dge (Junior Division), Hisar v by the learned Additional Dist

3.03.2001, whereby the suit filed , as gathered from the plaint ff is the owner in possession of h measuring 600 sq. yards, shown he plaintiff is a retired Lt. Colo

- rent vide trict d by half n in

from Indian Arm It is averred tha Manki and Gin connivance with favour of defend

3.

defendants ente and executed a defendants and purchased from residential kothi Defendant No.1 two portions in claims that he s wall, thereby d divided portions

4.

joint family pro A, the plaintiff w out of which th Heads B and C under Head D. plaintiff's half s his share on cer my and is the son of defendant N at defendant No.1 has three dau na Devi. According to the pla h each other, procured a judgme dant No.2, which is liable to be s e plaintiff asserts that in No ered into an agreement regardin a deed of agreement, which attested by witnesses. It is f m joint family funds in the n i was constructed with joint fun is stated to have expressed his his letter dated 11.11.1986 addr pent about ₹20,000/- on renovat dividing the kothi into two por s was given to the plaintiff and d e plaintiff further states that the operty marked as A, B, C, and D was allotted a house situated at e plaintiff paid ₹30,000/- to def C were other land and houses, Defendant No.2 allegedly exp share in Kothi No.1 for ₹2,60,00 rtain conditions. Defendant No.2

No.1 and brother of defendant No ughters, namely Smt. Dharmo, S aintiff, defendants No.1 and 2, ent and decree dated 25.11.1989 set aside. ovember 1989, the plaintiff g division of joint family prope was signed by the plaintiff further stated that Plot No.1 w name of defendant No.1, and nds of the plaintiff and defenda intention to divide Kothi No.1 i ressed to the plaintiff. The plain tion and partition by constructin rtions, and that possession of defendant No.2 accordingly. e parties had divided four items D in the division deed. Under H Village Nehla, valued at ₹60,00 fendant No.2. The properties un while the suit property is cove pressed his desire to purchase 00/-, and the plaintiff agreed to 2 was required to pay ₹26,000/-

- o.2. Smt. , in 9 in erty was nts. into ntiff ng a s of Head 00/-, nder ered sell - as

earnest money plaintiff pleads pay the balance The plaintiff al obtained the imp

5.

case in toto. Th from joint fund defendant No.1 from his own asserted that de property pursua concerned inclu in the suit prope

6.

Fro following issues

¶1hou effe

¶2get alle

¶3Civ by 08.11.1989 and the remai that although defendant No.2 pa e, rendering the agreement void lleges that in order to defeat h pugned decree fraudulently. e defendants filed their written hey denied existence of joint fam ds, and any agreement of divisio purchased the plot in his exclu income, and never consented efendant No.2 is the absolute ant to a valid compromise decre uding the plaintiff. They denied erty and prayed for dismissal of t om the pleadings of the parties, s: Whether the plaintiff is ow use in dispute as detailed in the fect? OPD If issue No.1 is proved, then t the revenue entries/municipal eged? OPD Whether the judgment and vil Suit No.777-C dated 25.11.19

ining amount by 07.05.1990. T aid the earnest amount, he failed d and restoring the earlier partiti his rights, defendants No.1 and n statement denying the plainti mily funds, the purchase of the p on as alleged. They contended t usive name, constructed the ho to any division. The defenda owner in possession of the ee dated 25.11.1989, binding on the plaintiff's right, title or inter the suit. the learned trial Court framed wner in possession of 1/2 share e head note of the plaint, if so n whether the plaintiff is entitled entries corrected in his name decree dated 25.11.1989 passed 989 in favour of defendant No.2

- d to ion. d 2 ff's plot that ouse ants suit n all rest e of o its d to e as d in 2, is

wro of t

¶4to a

5. OP

6.

¶7from

8.

¶9suit

¶10nec

¶11fee

12.

7.

In Chhabil Dass as Om Parkash as P PW10, Wazir as Advocate, as PW documents were ong, illegal and misrepresentatio the plaintiff? OPD If Issues No.1 & 2 are prov any injunction as prayed for? OP Whether the plaintiff has no PD Whether the suit is not maint Whether the plaintiff is esto m filing the present suit? OPD Whether the suit is time-barr Whether the plaintiff has no t? OPD

Whether the suit is bad fo cessary parties? OPD

Whether the suit is not prope and jurisdiction? OPD

Relief. support of his case, the plainti s PW2, Parminder as PW3, Hari PW6, Suresh as PW7, Jaimal as s PW11, Ram Sarup as PW12, B W14, Bal Mukand as PW15 an e also tendered in evidence.

on and not binding upon the rig ved, whether the plaintiff is entit PD locus standi to file the present su tainable in the present form? OP opped by his own act and cond red? OPD o cause of action to file the pres or mis-joinder and non-joinder erly valued for the purposes of co iff examined Ram Singh as PW dat as PW4, Ravi Shankar as PW PW8, Rakesh as PW9, Rampha Beer Singh as PW13, Sardara Sin nd Sajjan Singh as PW16. Cert

- ghts tled uit? D duct sent r of ourt W1, W5, al as ngh,

8.

De they also produc Findings of the

9.

evidence, held t No.1 and the ho family funds, or The Court noted (Ex.PW5/2) sa arrangement re amounted to a rendering it inad version of partit evidence. The o as PW16 admitt Local Commiss possession of an dated 11.11.198 nor did it show the evidence es ownership of de defendant No.2. were governed Jats governed b fendant No.1 appeared as DW1 ced documents in support of thei e trial Court e trial Court, after appreciating that the plaintiff had completely ouse constructed thereon were pu r that any valid partition of the d that although the plaintiff relie aid to record the division of egarding Kothi No.1, the said an instrument of partition re dmissible in evidence. The Cou tion and delivery of possession ral statements of witnesses were ted that no portion of the house sioner's inspection also reveal ny part of the disputed property. 86 allegedly written by defendan that the property was joint Hind stablished that the plot and the efendant No.1, who was fully co . The Court also held that the pla by Hindu law so as to claim a y custom, no presumption of joi

1 and defendant No.2 as DW2 ir defence. g the entire oral and document failed to establish his plea that P urchased or built out of joint Hin suit property had ever taken pla ed heavily on an alleged agreem f joint family property and document was unregistered equiring compulsory registrati urt further found that the plainti was not supported by any relia e inconsistent, and even the plain e was in his actual possession. T led that the plaintiff was not . The Court observed that the le nt No.1 did not prove any partiti du family property. On the contra construction were in the exclus ompetent to transfer it in favour aintiff failed to show that the par coparcenary interest. Rather, be int Hindu family property could

- tary Plot ndu ace. ment ion, ff's able ntiff t in etter ion, ary, sive r of rties eing

drawn. Consequ perfectly legal, ownership, entit relief, and main dismissed. Findings of the

10.

Court after a co plaintiff had utt property or that the plaintiff's ow to his father, M separate plot as blending of sel found that the p construction of PW13 regardin uncorroborated Ex.PW5/2 relie instrument of p leading seconda reasoning that t law and not by Hindu family p uently, the compromise decree valid and binding, and all the tlement to correction of entries, ntainability were decided again e First Appellate Court e learned First Appellate Court omprehensive re-appraisal of the terly failed to prove that the sui t he had any share, title or posse wn admissions that the plot in di ajor Thandi Ram, and that the p s an army officer, thereby negat lf-acquired property into the jo plaintiff had produced no docum the suit house, and the oral test ng partition or delivery o and insufficient. It was also ed upon by the plaintiff was in partition requiring compulsory r ary evidence had been sought. T the parties, being Jats from Hary y Hindu coparcenary law, and property could arise. It further

dated 25.11.1989 was held to e issues concerning the plainti challenge to the decree, injunct nst him. The suit was accordin affirmed the judgment of the t e entire evidence and held that it property was joint Hindu fam ession therein. The Court relied ispute had been allotted exclusiv plaintiff himself had been allotte ting the plea of joint acquisition oint family hotchpotch. The Co mentary proof of contribution to timony of PW9, PW10, PW11 of possession was inconsiste held that the unregistered d nadmissible as it amounted to registration, and no permission The Court endorsed the trial Cou yana, were governed by custom therefore no presumption of jo r held that the letters written

- be iff's tive ngly trial mily d on vely ed a n or ourt ent, deed an for urt's mary oint

defendant No.1 that the plaintif property on the mere declarator maintainable un that the plaintiff compromise de proved, the dec devoid of merit

10.12.1999 of th

11.

Ag appellant has fi respondents. Submission of l

12.

Lea to correctly app that the suit pro even DW-1 Ma admitted his sig PW-16/D addre distributed betw Ex.PW-16/A ad Thandi Ram to defendant himse did not establish any actual part ff was admittedly not in poss date of filing of the suit. The ap ry suit without seeking consequ nder Section 34 of the Specific f, having no right or interest in t cree dated 25.11.1989, and sin cree was valid and binding. Co and was dismissed with costs, he learned Civil Judge (Junior Di grieved by the concurrent fin iled the present regular second learned counsel for the appella arned counsel for the appellant a preciate the evidence which, acc operty was purchased and constr ajor Thandi Ram, father of the gnatures on various letters Ex.P essed to the plaintiff, which dis ween the plaintiff and defendant dmitted by DW-1, the compla the police, and the compromis elf treated the property as joint

tition or delivery of possession, ession of any portion of the ppellate Court also concluded th uential relief of possession was Relief Act. Finally, the Court h the property, could not impeach nce no fraud or illegality had b onsequently, the appeal was fou and the judgment and decree da ivision), Hisar were affirmed. ndings of the Courts below, appeal, which is contested by ant argued that the Courts below fai cording to him, clearly establish ructed out of joint family funds plaintiff and defendant No.2, h PW-16/A, PW-16/B, PW-16/C closed that the property was to No.2. It was further submitted t aint Ex.PW-15/1 given by Ma se Ex.PW-15/2 all showed that family property. It was argued t

- suit at a not held een und ated iled hed , as had o be that ajor

DW-1 also adm Singh similarly contended that property was co moment it is p judgment and de the back of the having been imp in Civil Suit No plaint himself ad this admission, proved that the p were residing to be fraudulent, th was not joint fa 15/2 stood duly PW-2 proved th ownership. He s that the suit had on the same day appeared and ha the real counse showed fraud, Learned counse mitted the compromise deed Ex.P y admitted their signatures, p once such evidence was on re onstructed from joint family fun roved that the appellant had h ecree dated 25.11.1989 passed in appellant was clearly collusive pleaded as a party in that suit. L o.777 dated 25.11.1989 (Ex.P14 dmitted that the suit property wa coupled with the letters writte property was purchased from joi ogether. It was contended that on he burden shifted to the respond amily property. Counsel argued proved by PW-15 Ram Singh, C hat the property was rented ou submitted that the file noting dat d been ordered to be registered fo y, without waiting for the date f ad the matter decreed in favour el and the unexplained manner and on this ground alone, the el emphasised that the admitted

PW-15/2 and DW-2 Lt. Col. Par roving joint acquisition. Coun ecord, it stood established that nds. It was then submitted that, half share in the suit property, n favour of respondent No.2 beh e and fraudulent, the appellant Learned counsel further argued t 4), defendant No.2 in para 2 of as joint Hindu family property, en by Major Thandi Ram, clea int family funds while both broth nce the earlier decree was alleged dents to prove that the suit prope that the compromise deed Ex.P Clerk from SSP Office, Hissar, ut by B & R Hisar, showing jo ted 25.11.1989 at page 106 show or hearing on 27.11.1989, howev fixed, proxy counsels for both si of defendant No.2. The absence r in which the decree was pas decree deserved to be set asi d letters Ex.PW-16/A to PW-16

- rtap nsel hind not that arly hers d to erty PW-oint wed ver, ides e of ssed ide. 6/D,

admitted by DW had half share. documentary an plaintiff was no portion and pos submitted that t was purchased regarding custom evidence and the Submissions of

13.

Lea findings of both require no inter joint Hindu fam could be purch separate plots w capacities as A from their own cross-examinati house was cons documentary pr the suit propert dated 08.11.198 in accordance W-1, showed that the suit proper It was further argued that bot nd oral admissions of DW-1 and ot in possession, whereas the ap ssession need not be claimed in the appellant had a pre-existing from joint family funds, and t m and applicability of Hindu la erefore unsustainable in law. f learned Senior Counsel for th arned counsel for the respond h courts below are based on a co rference, as the plaintiff failed t mily property or that any joint fa hased or constructed. On the c were allotted to the plaintiff and Army personnel, and both const n funds. It was emphasised tha on that the plot in dispute was a structed by his father, and that roof of having contributed towar ty. Counsel further submitted th 89 (Ex.PW15/2) is neither registe with law, and is inadmissible

rty was joint and that the appell th the Courts below ignored v d DW-2, and wrongly held that ppellant was in possession of h n a joint property. Lastly, coun g right in the joint property, wh the findings of both courts bel aw were contrary to pleadings he respondents dents argued that the concurr orrect appreciation of evidence to prove that the suit property w amily nucleus existed from whic contrary, the evidence shows t defendant No.1 in their individ tructed their houses independen at the plaintiff himself admitted allotted to defendant No.1, that t he had no receipts, accounts, rds the purchase or construction hat the alleged deed of agreem ered nor stamped, was never prov , and even otherwise it is no

- lant vital half nsel hich low rent was ch it that dual ntly d in , or n of ment ved

memorandum o photocopy prod relied upon. Th expression of in ever took place plaintiff's own demolishes his c criminal compla forth was an aft Ex.P143, under are perfectly leg property, canno himself benefit objection, and h now. The respo was admittedly consequential re 1963. Lastly, co not Hindu law, property among entitling him to fully justified.

f partition but an instrument req duced without laying foundation he alleged letters relied upon ntention by defendant No.1 but or that possession of half share w admission that he was not in p case. Counsel also relied upon th aints and disputes with family m terthought. It was contended tha which defendant No.1 transferr gal and valid, and the plaintiff, h ot challenge their registration o ed from a similar consent dec hence he is estopped from disp ondents argued that the plaintiff y not in possession of the s elief, attracting the bar under Se ounsel submitted that the partie and there is no presumption of g Jats of Haryana, thus, the pla a share in the property and the

quiring compulsory registration; n for secondary evidence cannot by the plaintiff merely show do not establish that any partit was handed over to the plaintiff; possession of any part of the ho he plaintiff's conduct, including members, to show that the story at the consent decrees Ex.P142 red the property to defendant No having no right or interest in the or validity; moreover, the plain cree (Ex.D2) without raising puting the validity of such decr f's suit was not maintainable as suit property and failed to s ction 34 of the Specific Relief A es are governed by customary l f joint Hindu family or joint fam aintiff failed to prove any cust e findings of both courts below

- t be an tion ouse put o.2, suit ntiff any rees s he eek Act, aw, mily tom

Findings of this

14.

Hav meticulously ex and the submiss any of the groun around three bro property; (ii) t

02.12.1989 wer worth of the all allegedly written

15.

On Family (JHF) p burden. The pla was allotted to same way a sepa individual and n does not arise. T No.2) shows th funds, the acco produce any rec purchase or con an unsubstantiat The appellant re that "he and his s Court ving heard learned counsel for xamined the entire evidence, the sions made in the present appea nds urged by the appellant. The e oad aspects: (i) the nature of the the allegation that the consen re obtained fraudulently and ar leged deed of agreement dated n by defendant No.1 to the appel n the question whether the suit property, the appellant has utte aintiff himself, appearing as PW1 defendant No.1 individually by arate plot was allotted to the plai not ancestral, the presumption of The consistent evidence of DW hat the house was constructed ounts of which were maintained ceipt, account book, proof of co nstruction. His vague assertion th ted statement and has rightly be elied heavily on the stray admis father constituted a joint Hindu

r the parties at length and hav e judgments of both courts belo al, this Court finds no substance entire case of the appellant revol suit property as Joint Hindu Fam nt decrees dated 25.11.1989 re illegal; and (iii) the evidenti

08.11.1989 and the various lett llant. t property constitutes Joint Hin erly failed to discharge the ini 16, admitted that the plot in disp y virtue of his Army status, in intiff himself. Once the allotmen f joint family or joint family nucl 1 (the father) and DW2 (defend by defendant No.1 from his o d by him. The plaintiff could ontributing any amount towards hat he "gave money to his father een discarded by the courts belo ssion of DW1 in cross-examinat family", but such a bald stateme

- ving ow, e in lves mily iary ters ndu itial pute nt is leus dant own not r" is ow. tion ent,

without any ple automatically co well-settled that joint. What mus hotchpotch, som noted that the p not by the unc appellant has le under which he the conclusion t established.

16.

Com (Ex.PW15/2), th document produ scribe was not were ever esta unregistered. M past partition b manner, a docum of the Registrat Even if one we partition actuall appellant. The a separately from ading, proof of jointness, comm onvert self-acquired property int t mere membership in a Hindu st be proved is blending of sepa mething completely absent here. arties are Jats of Haryana who a codified principles of Hindu l ed no evidence whatsoever to s e acquires a right in the self-acq that the property is not joint H ming to the alleged deed he arguments of the appellant do uced is only a photocopy, the examined, no foundational fac ablished and even otherwise, More importantly, the document o ut an instrument proposing div ment that would compulsorily re tion Act. The courts below ther ere to read it for collateral pur ly took place, or that possessi appellant's own admissions such m his father since 1966, that his

mon mess, or joint income, does to joint family property. The law family does not make the prope arate property into the joint fam The courts below have also righ are governed by customary law law relating to coparcenary. T show the existence of any cust quired property of his father. Th indu family property stands firm of agreement dated 08.11.19 o not withstand legal scrutiny. T original was never produced, cts for leading secondary evide the document is unstamped on its face is not a memorandum vision of properties in a particu equire registration under Section refore rightly held it inadmissib rposes, it does not prove that ion was ever handed over to h as his admission that he was liv ration card, voter card, electric

- not w is erty mily htly tom hus, mly ence m of ular n 17 ble. any ving

connection, and of the suit hous partition or poss

17.

PW16/D) also d that they contai family, not proo half the house possession, non they show con particularly whe transferred the cannot override into possession

18.

obtained fraudu evidence whatso appellant not be no legal right in has also come o in his favour on objection that h the plaintiff acc cannot be permi tax payments were all at his sep se was ever in his possession, session. e letters allegedly written by do not assist the appellant. A car in expressions of desire or inte of of any actual partition or tran was handed over to the app ne show that the appellant ever ntemplation of some arrange en viewed in light of the fact property to defendant No.2 thr the admitted documentary posit and never contributed any amou e allegation that the consent de ulently also stands demolishe oever to prove fraud. The entir eing impleaded in the earlier sui n the suit property, there was no on record that the plaintiff himsel n the same date i.e.02.12.1989 an his own decree required registrat cepted the validity of the same itted to challenge the same proce

parate residence, and that no port completely belie the plea of pr defendant No.1 (Ex.PW16/A reful reading of these letters sho ention to settle disputes within sfer. None of the letters record t pellant, none mention delivery resided in the suit house. At b ement which never materialis that defendant No.1 subsequen rough consent decrees. The lett tion that the appellant never ente unt towards construction. ecrees (Ex.P142 & Ex.P143) w ed. The appellant has placed re plea of fraud is premised on it, however, when the appellant o requirement of impleading him lf secured a consent decree (Ex.D nd at that time, he never raised tion or was otherwise illegal. O e procedure in his own favour, ess when it benefits defendant No

- tion rior A to ows that y of best, sed, ntly ters ered were has m. It D2) any nce he o.2.

Fraud must be s that defendant while suffering plaintiff's condu conclude that th

19.

cannot advance mentioned that t where none exi contrary to the d rightly observed suit itself was g his independent

20.

Las property on the possession; nev that he had no Thus, the suit fo the Specific Rel Conclusion

21.

In v by the appellant are supported by specifically pleaded and strictly p No.1 acted under any coercion the decree. The lower appella uct, including criminal complain he plea of fraud is an afterthought e argument regarding admission e the appellant's case. Even if the property was "joint", such ad ists. Title in immovable propert documents of allotment and con d that such admissions are inadm enuine or contested; moreover, t title, not rely on a stray statemen stly, the finding that the plaintif e date of the suit is unassail ver sought relief of possession a possession. The Local Commis or declaration simpliciter was bar lief Act, and rightly dismissed. view of the above exhaustive c t, this Court finds that the findi y evidence and law, are neither p

proved. Nothing on record sugge n, deception, or misrepresentat ate Court has also relied upon nts arising out of family disputes t. n in the plaint of the earlier suit a defendant No.2, in an earlier s dmission cannot, in law, create t ty cannot arise from an admiss nstruction. Further, the courts bel missible for want of proof that the appellant was required to pr nt. ff was not in possession of the able. The plaintiff never plea and admitted in cross-examinat ssioner's report also supports t rred by the proviso to Section 34 consideration of every point argu ngs recorded by both courts bel perverse nor illegal, and call for

- ests tion s, to also suit, title sion low ove suit ded tion his. 4 of ued low

interference.The misreading of ev

22.

Pen

December 03, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh e appellant has failed to dem vidence, or perversity. According nding application(s), if any, also

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

monstrate any jurisdictional er gly, the appeal stands dismissed stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o.

- rror, .