Ram Kumar & Ors v. Dillo & Ors

IN T

Ram Kumar and Dillo (deceased)

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

For

Res

Vid

Res

Vid

Nam

Vid

MANDEEP PA

1.

plaintiffs challe Court of Civil J and injunction w THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da

d Others

VERSUS ) through LRs and Others ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Rahul Vohra, Advocate and r. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the a ne for respondent Nos. 4 to 8. r. S.K.Panwar, Advocate r respondents No.12, 13 and 14. spondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 9 were p de order dated 28.03.2025 spondents No.10 and 16 were pr de order dated 24.07.2019 me of respondents No. 11 and 15 de order dated 20.09.2019 -.-

ANNU,J. e present Regular Second Appea enging the judgment and decre Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad was dismissed, as well as the jud

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-5231-2015 (O&M) served on:-10.09.2025 ate of Decision : 15.09.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU appellants. proceeded ex parte roceeded ex parte 5 were struck off al has been filed by the appellan e dated 13.09.2013 passed by whereby their suit for declarat dgment and decree dated 13.04.20

-nts-

passed by the le of the learned tr Brief Facts

2.

injunction claim Khasra No.64(1 the extent of 1/ interest of defen No.9 to 11, w plaintiffs, each illegally and wi sale deed dated a lease deed dat these transaction plaintiffs asserte respective share binding upon t mutation are al injunction restra

3.

Up written statemen property on the They further all of the contents o earned Additional District Judge rial court and dismissing their app e appellants-plaintiffs instituted ming that they are co-owners in -3), situated in village Basantpu /6th share. It was their pleaded ndants No.1 to 8, and Nathua, pr were co-sharers along with Ram having one-third share. It was ithout authority alienated the en

19.03.1962 in favour of defend ted 12.03.1962 in favour of defe ns, mutation Nos.100 and 101 w ed that since Ghusan and Nathua es, the sale deed and lease deed their rights, title and interest, lso liable to be set aside. Alo aining interference in their posse on notice, defendants No.12 to nt alleging therein that they are basis of the sale deed dated 19 eged that the suit filed by the pla of the plaint, they have prayed fo

e, Faridabad affirming the findi peal. d a civil suit for declaration n possession of land comprised ur, Tehsil and District Faridabad d case that Ghusan, predecessor redecessor-in-interest of defenda m Chand, the predecessor of s alleged that Ghusan and Nath ntire khasra number by executin ants No.13 to 15 and also execu endant No.13 to 15. On the basis were sanctioned in their favour. T a could not alienate more than th d are illegal, null and void and and consequently the entries ong with declaration, they sou ssion. o 14 appeared and filed their jo e owners in possession of the

9.03.1962 executed in their favo aintiffs is time barred. Denying r or dismissal of the suit.

- ings d in d, to -in-ants hua ng a uted s of heir not of ught oint suit our.

4.

Fro the learned trial

¶1pra

¶2inju

¶3pre

¶4file

5.

5.

In o the witness box relied upon do (Ex.P1), Jamaba (Ex.P3), copy of dated 19.03.196 (Ex.P8), demarc Ex.P11), and mu

6.

On as DW2, Gyan produced on re Jamabandis for for 1963–64 (E om the pleadings of the parties, t Court on 19.09.2012: Whether the plaintiff is enti ayed for? OPP Whether the plaintiff is en unction as prayed for? OPP Whether the suit of the pl esent form? OPD Whether the plaintiff has no e the present suit? OPD Whether the suit is time barre order to prove their case, plainti x as PW1 and reiterated the ave cumentary evidence including andi for the year 1963–64 (Ex.P2 f lease deed dated 12.03.1962 (E 62 in Urdu and Hindi (Ex.P6 cation report (Ex.P9), documen utation Nos.100 and 101 (Mark A n the other hand, the defendants nender Singh ARC as DW3 an ecord copy of sale deeds dated the years 2006–07 and 2007–08 Ex.DW4/2), copy of Jamabandi

the following issues were settled itled for a decree of declaration ntitled for a decree of perman laintiff is not maintainable in cause of action and locus stand ed? OPD iff Ram Kumar himself appeared rments of the plaint. The plaint Jamabandi for the year 2002– 2), Jamabandi for the year 1959– Ex.P4 and Ex.P5), copy of sale d 6 and Ex.P7), memo of prese nts in Urdu language (Ex.P10 A and B). examined Birpal as DW1, Mah nd Rajesh Patwari as DW4. Th d 18.09.1963 (Ex.D1 and Ex.D 8 (Ex.D3 to D5), copy of Jamaba for 1967–68 (Ex.DW4/3), copy

- d by n as nent di to d in tiffs –03 –60 deed nce hesh hey D2), andi

sale deed dated

7.

In r Findings of the

8.

evidence, held t Ram Chand, th plaintiffs also p deed dated 19.0 entire khasra nu suggesting exclu deed showed th Court held that e declaration wou khata. The prop to institute a su No.1 and 2 wer trial Court noted these issues we recorded agains suit on 13.09.20 declaration and Findings of the

9.

Ag heard by the lea Court, while re-

23.09.1963 (Ex.DW3/1) and an rebuttal, plaintiffs tendered photo e Trial Court e learned trial Court, after exa that Jamabandi for the years 19 he predecessor of the plaintiffs produced certified copies of lea

03.1962, which showed that Gh umber 64(1-3). The Court observ usive share of Ghusan and Nath hat more than their share was al even if the sale deed was declare uld not be beneficial unless pla perty in question being joint, rem uit for partition and not for mere re decided against the plaintiffs d that though the onus was upon ere not pressed, and no eviden st the defendants. Ultimately, th 013 holding that the plaintiffs ha injunction. e First Appellate Court grieved, the plaintiffs filed Civi arned Additional District Judge -appreciating the evidence, reite

nother Urdu document (Ex.DW3 ographs Mark A and Mark B. amining the oral and document 959–60 and 1963–64 reflected t s, had share in the suit land. T se deed dated 12.03.1962 and s husan and Nathua had alienated ved that there was no revenue rec hua in the entire khasra and the s lienated. However, the learned t ed null and void qua plaintiffs, su intiffs sought partition of the jo medy available to the plaintiffs w e declaration. Consequently, iss s. On issues No.3 to 5, the learn n the defendants, during argume nce was led. Thus, findings w he learned trial Court dismissed ad failed to establish entitlemen l Appeal No.12 of 2014 which w , Faridabad. The learned Appell rated that the Jamabandi for 195

- /2). tary that sale cord sale trial uch oint was sues ned ents were nt to was late 59–

60 clearly prov dated 19.03.196 interest. The cou years old, supp presumption of report Ex.P9 an plaintiffs by sho Appellate Court 204, that posses ouster is pleaded Court Cases 2 possession, such on the vendee.

10.

limitation in lig RCR (Civil) 676 first accrues. Sin hopelessly barre Kumar admitted the time of filing during the lifeti incompetent. O

13.04.2015, affi

11.

Ag below, the appel ed possession of Ghusan and N 62 and lease deed dated 12.03.19 urt observed that the documents ported the possession of Ghu genuineness attached to them. I nd the report of the Local Co owing that they were not in poss t relied upon the law laid down ssion of one co-owner is in the e d and proved. It also referred to R 59, to hold that even if a co h transfer is subject to partition e learned Appellate Court fu ght of Khatri Hotels Private L 6, and held that limitation runs f nce the sale deed was executed ed by limitation. The learned Co d in his cross-examination that h g of the suit. The LRs, therefore me of Ram Chand, and on this On cumulative consideration, irming the judgment of the learne grieved by the judgment and d llants-plaintiffs filed the present

Nathua as co-sharers and sale d 962 transferred their possession s Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, though over usan and Nathua and there w It further held that the demarcat ommissioner also went against session of the suit land. The learn in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup 1981 P eyes of law possession of all, unl Ram Das v. Sita Bai 2009 (4) C o-sharer transfers a portion in and does not confer exclusive t urther examined the question imited v. Union of India 2012 from the date when the right to in 1962, the suit filed in 2007 w ourt also noticed that plaintiff R his father Ram Chand was alive e, had no locus standi to file the ground also the suit was held to the appeal was dismissed ed trial Court. decrees passed by both the Cou Regular Second Appeal.

- deed r 30 was tion ned PLJ less Civil his title of 2(1) sue was Ram e at suit o be on

12.

Up appeal. Submissions of

13.

Lea below have com the trial court i alienate the enti suit on the erro without partition lease dated 12.0 1/6th share can partition withou legally untenabl

14.

It i upholding the f limitation. Acco when they acqu and therefore th Lower Appellat Chand was aliv also co-sharers both courts belo record, based on liable to be set a Submissions of on notice, respondents No.12 f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellant mmitted patent illegality in dism itself recorded a finding that G ire khasra in which Ram Chand oneous ground that declaration n. It is contended that unless th

03.1962 are first declared null an nnot be protected, and hence r ut first deciding the validity of le. s further submitted that the learn findings of learned trial Court b ording to the appellants, the ca uired knowledge of the sale deed e suit was within limitation. It is te Court that the suit was tech ve is wholly perverse, as the pla and entitled to protect their ind ow are assailed as being contr n conjectures and surmises, igno aside. f learned counsel for responden

to 14 appeared and contested lants ts has argued that both the Cou missing the suit. It is submitted t Ghusan and Nathua had no right also had a share, yet dismissed n would not benefit the plaint he sale deed dated 19.03.1962 nd void, the appellants' right to th relegating them to file a suit the sale deed and lease deed w ned Lower Appellate Court erred by holding the suit to be barred ause of action arose only in 20 d and entries in the revenue reco s also argued that the findings of hnically incompetent because R aintiffs being his sons and wife dependent share. The judgments rary to law, facts and evidence oring admissible evidence and t nt Nos. 12 to 14

- urts that t to tiffs heir for was d in d by ord, f the Ram are s of on

15.

Per has supported th property was joi possession of a contended that e more than their only remedy av Reliance is also submit that a v vendor's share, findings of the from the report o

16.

On Limitation Act, the date of first filed in 2007 w India 2012(1) maintainable as the time of filin substantial ques dismissed. Findings of this

17.

Hav this Court finds dated 19.03.196 r contra, learned counsel appea he concurrent findings of both int and unpartitioned, and in law all, as laid down in Bhartu v. even if Ghusan and Nathua exec share, the transfer would remain vailable to the plaintiffs was to placed on Ram Das v. Sita Bai vendee from a co-sharer acqu though subject to adjustment courts below that plaintiffs wer of Local Commissioner as well a n limitation, learned counsel 1963 clearly prescribes three y t accrual of cause of action. The was ex facie barred, as held in K RCR (Civil) 676. It is furth Ram Chand, predecessor of the ng of the suit and was not imp stion of law arises for determina s Court ving heard learned counsel for t s that the following aspects are 62 and lease deed dated 12.03.1

aring for respondents No.12 to courts below. It is argued that w the possession of one co-owne Ram Sarup 1991 PLJ 204. I cuted a sale deed and lease deed n valid subject to partition, and seek partition and not declarati 2009 (4) Civil Court Cases 259 uires valid rights to the extent at partition. It is argued that re not in possession stand fortif as Jamabandis of subsequent yea submits that Article 58 of years for a suit for declaration fr e sale deed being of 1962, the Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union her urged that the suit was e plaintiffs, was admittedly alive pleaded. In view of the above, ation and the appeal deserves to the parties and perused the recor e not in dispute that the sale d 962 were executed by Ghusan

- er is t is for ion. 9, to t of fied ars. rom suit n of not e at o be rds,

Nathua and that that the property the plaintiffs co courts below co

18.

concurrently he may not bind th shoes of the ve institute a suit fo supported by th Das v. Sita Bai deed is a neces such declaration share without pa

19.

On sale deed having plea of knowle mutations and r on Khatri Hotel

20.

Ad was alive at the legal representa technical defect

21.

Thu below are based t Ram Chand, predecessor of th y in question was never partition ould maintain a suit for declar mmitted an error in dismissing th e learned trial Court as wel ld that in case of joint property he other co-sharers beyond his s endor as a co-sharer. The remed for partition and not merely for d he principles laid down in Bhart i (supra). The argument of the sary pre-condition before filing n is granted, the plaintiffs woul artition proceedings. n limitation also, the concurrent g been executed in 1962, the suit edge arising in 2007 is without revenue entries. The reliance pla ls Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is apt and app dditionally, the finding that the su time of institution cannot be fau atives had no right to maintain strikes at the very root of mainta us, the concurrent findings of d upon proper appreciation of e

e plaintiffs, was also co-sharer ned. The crucial question is whet ration simplicitor and whether heir claim. ll as the Appellate Court h y, alienation made by one co-sha share, yet the vendee steps into dy of the aggrieved co-sharer is declaration. This reasoning is firm tu v. Ram Sarup (supra) and R appellants that declaration of s partition is misconceived. Even d not derive possession or spec t findings deserve acceptance. T t filed in 2007 is clearly barred. T t merit in view of the sanction aced by the Lower Appellate Co plicable. uit was incompetent as Ram Ch ulted. The plaintiffs claiming as n the suit during his lifetime. T ainability. fact recorded by both the Cou evidence and correct application

- ther have arer s to mly Ram sale n if cific ned ourt his This urts

law. The judgm warrant interfere Conclusion

22.

In v Courts below ha and not in filing and further that Ram Chand. T principles of law

23.

24.

Pen

September 15, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh ments cannot be said to suffer fr ence under Section 100 CPC. view of the above detailed discu ave correctly held that the plainti g a suit for declaration and that t the same was incompetent as The concurrent findings being w, call for no interference. e present Regular Second Appea nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

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

rom perversity or illegality so as ussion, this Court holds that both iffs' remedy lay in seeking partit t the suit was barred by limitati it was filed during the lifetime g based on evidence and sett al is, accordingly, dismissed stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- s to tion ion, e of