Kartara Ram Since Deceased Thr Lrs and Ors v. Mukhtiara Ram and Ors

IN TH

Kartara Ram t Mukhtiara Ram CORAM: HO

Present: M

fo

* PARMOD GO

A recorded by

21.12.2013 pa which suit for also by judgm District Judge plaintiffs was

2.

A be exclusive o 5 kanals 16 m in-possession described in p dated 09.11.1 plaintiffs had No.4950 dated defendant No

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGARH

through legal representatives and Versus m and Others

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARM Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate or appellants. ** OYAL, J. (ORAL) Appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieve Courts below vide impugned assed by Civil Judge (Junior declaration preferred by appella ment and decree dated 24.01.2 , Yamuna Nagar vide which first also dismissed. Appellants-plaintiffs vide their su owners in possession to extent o marlas. It was asserted that appell of land measuring 9 kanals 2 ma aragraph (ii) of the head note of 998 executed by their father n claimed that mutation No.947 a d 30.09.2009 executed by defen .1 are illegal, null and void. A

AB AND HARYANA AT H RSA-5061-2018(O&M) Date of decision:19.01.2026 d Another ...Appellants

...Respondents MOD GOYAL ed by concurrent finding of facts d judgment and decree dated Division) Yamuna Nagar vide ants-plaintiffs was dismissed and 2018 passed by the Additional t appeal preferred by appellants-uit for declaration had claimed to of equal share of land measuring lants-plaintiffs are joint owners-arlas, having 3/4th share in land, f the plaint, as per registered will namely, Kalu Ram. Appellants-and 952 as well as release deed ndant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of Apart from relief of declaration, -

s d e d l - o g - , l - d f , appellants-pla Appellants-pla possession of separately for suffered a dec Sub-Judge, Ja were declared comprised in k challenged by Jagjit Singh, S were held co-was stated to against judgm appellate Cour

3.

It plaintiffs had d appellants-pla properties to a basis of said W getting mutatio to be owners i in favour of d defendant No suit property o well relinquish

intiffs had also sought reli aintiffs had asserted that their f suit land; that defendant No.1 s more than 35 years from the jo cree dated 06.11.1993 passed by agadhari in Civil Suit No.830 o d owner-in-possession of land m khasra No.32//8/2/2 and 7//19/2 y defendant No.1 and same was Sub Judge Jagadhari. Appellant -sharers in possession of 1/4th s be of Kalu Ram. The appeal p ment and decree dated 28.09. rt vide judgment and decree date t is the case of appellants-plain died on 29.07.2002 after executi intiffs on 09.11.1998, leaving a appellants-plaintiffs. However, n Will. That defendants, in collusio on No.947, whereby all the legal in equal shares. Defendant Nos. defendant No.1 and a Mutation N .1. By suit for declaration, app on the basis of Will by declaring hment deed dated 30.09.2009 to

ief of permanent injunction. father Kalu Ram was owner-in-separated long ago and is living oint family; that their father had Court of Sh. S.P. Singh, Senior f 1993 and appellants-plaintiffs measuring 12 kanals 03 marlas, 2 and 20/1. The said decree was s set aside by the Court of Sh. ts-plaintiffs and defendant No.1 share each and remaining 1/4th preferred by appellants-plaintiffs .1998 was dismissed by first ed 08.05.2000. ntiffs that father of appellants-ing a registered Will in favour of all his movable and immovable no mutation was executed on the on with each other, succeeded in l heirs of Kalu Ram were shown 2 and 3 had released their share No.952 was entered in favour of pellants-plaintiffs claimed entire g mutation dated 947 and 952 as be illegal, void and not binding . - g d r s , s .

h s t - f e e n n e f e s g on the rights o

4.

D of Kalu Ram No.1. Appell possession to t asserted that t forged, fabric Nos.2 and 3 w out of their fre suit was praye

5.

F

i) ii ii iv

v) vi vi vi

6.

L present case,

of appellants-plaintiffs. Defendants claimed that co-parce was held to joint family propert lants-plaintiffs and defendant the extent of 1/4th share each in the alleged registered Will in fa ated and vexatious document. were the lawful owners of the s ee will, executed relinquishment ed for. ollowing issues were framed by ) Whether plaintiffs are enti prayed for?OPP ) Whether plaintiffs are en injunction, as prayed for?O

i) Whether suit of the plaintiff

v) Whether plaintiffs have n clean hands?OPD ) Whether plaintiffs have n present suit?OPD

i) Whether plaintiffs have no suit?OPD

ii) Whether plaintiffs are sto suit?OPD

iii) Relief.

Learned counsel for appellants suit property was joint Hindu

enery suit property in the hands ty in the suit filed by defendant ts were declared owners in the suit property. Further, it was favour of appellants-plaintiffs is It was claimed that defendant suit property and therefore, they deed and therefore, dismissal of the Court of first instance:- itled to relief of declaration as ntitled to relief of permanent OPP ffs is not maintainable?OPD not approached this Court with no cause of action to file the o locus standi to file the present opped from filing the present s-plaintiffs has argued that in u family property/ancestral/co-s t n s s t y f s t h e t t n - parcenery prop amendment, w since successi had no right o devolved only defendant No. holding suit defendant Nos counsel for ap below, whereb rejected.

7.

O plaintiffs appe in considerati hands of Kalu measuring 12 7//19/2 were o said property defendant No.

8.

It No.1-father of passed by Sh. Suit No.830 o possession of of judgment a

perty in the hands of Kalu Ram whereby daughters have been giv on had opened up prior to amen over the suit property and the pro y in favour of co-parceners, who .1 alone and therefore, the learn property to be self-acquired p s.2 and 3 succeeded on account ppellants-plaintiffs has also chall by Will dated 09.11.1988 set u On first look, argument raised by ears to be attractive, however, le on filing of previous suit wher u Ram were duly partitioned. kanals 03 marlas comprised in only claimed to be joint property y to be co-parcenery/ancestral

¶1t is also worth noticing that prior f appellants-plaintiffs had suffe S.P. Singh, the then learned Sen of 1993, whereby appellants-plai land measuring 12 kanals 03 m and decree dated 28.09.1998 an

m, who died in 2002 before 2005 ven right to be co-parceners and ndment, therefore, the daughters operty of Kalu Ram would have o were appellants-plaintiffs and ned Courts below have erred in property of Kalu Ram which t of natural succession. Learned lenged finding of learned Courts up by appellants-plaintiffs was learned counsel for appellants-earned Courts have rightly taken reby the joint properties in the It is worth noticing that land n khasra No.32//8/2/2, 20/1 and y and suit for partition, claiming l property, was preferred by r to filing of said suit, defendant ered a decree dated 16.11.1993 nior Sub-Judge, Jagadhri in Civil intiffs were declared owners-in-marlas which was subject matter nd 08.05.2000. The said decree d s e d n h d s s - n e d d g y t

l - r e dated 06.11.19 No.1 culminat and decree, w found entitled against judgm plaintiffs was decree dated judgment and had only 12 k partitioned am being co-parce given to defen time only mal Said judgmen time of filing not added as jo

9.

Fu present suit parcenery pro judgment and appellants-pla goes to show could have b succession. A

09.11.1998 sta

993, however was set aside in c ting into judgment and decree d whereby appellants-plaintiffs an d to 1/4th share each, has attain ment and decree dated 28.09. s also dismissed by first appel

08.05.2000. From judgment an decree date 08.05.2000, it is c kanals 02 marlas land, which w mongst all the three sons and fat eners. In said joint family/co-pa ndant Nos.2 and 3, who are dau le co-parceners were entitled to nt and decree has attained final suit, the suit land which is subje oint/ancestral/co-parcenery prop urthermore, there is no eviden property was co-parcenery pr operties, which were subject m d decrees dated 28.09.1998 intiffs to show that suit land is that suit property was self-acqu een succeeded either by way Appellants-plaintiffs have also ated to have been executed by

civil suit preferred by defendant dated 28.09.1998. The judgment nd their father Kalu Ram were ned finality as appeal preferred 1998 preferred by appellants-llate Court vide judgment and nd decree dated 28.09.1998 and clearly made out that Kalu Ram was joint in nature and was duly ther to the extent of 1/4th share arcenery property, no share was ughters of Kalu Ram, as at that have the co-parcenery property. lity between the parties. At the ect matter of present appeal was perty. nce on record to conclude that roperty along with other co-matter of earlier suit as well as and 08.05.2000. Failure of s co-parcenery property in fact uired property of Kalu Ram and of will or by way of natural o placed on record Will dated Kalu Ram. However, attesting t t e d - d d m y e s t . e s t - s f t d l d g witness of sai vigour of cros the Courts bel due execution

10.

I Courts below that suit prope on the day o succeeded by sons and two d held both the suit property a deed in favou because appel

11.

F appreciation o appellants-pla Ex.D1, where amongst hims shown in Ex.D

i) pr as ii pa

id Will examined by appellan ss-examination and his evidence low to conclude that appellants of Will dated 09.11.1998. do not find any error in the on appreciation of evidence pla erty was self-acquired property i of succession, in absence of his class-I heirs as per Hindu S daughters. Therefore, in the pres daughters i.e. defendant Nos.2 a and out of their own free will, th ur of defendant No.1, which c llants-plaintiffs have not found f inding of learned Courts below of evidence led by parties. Face intiffs have tried to argue an ein 18 kanals land was agreed self and three sons, however, s D1 is liable to be ignored for two ) That the particulars of la resent proceedings was not give s being claimed by appellants-pl ) That Ex.D1 cannot be r artition in 1993 as vide Ex.D1 o

nts-plaintiffs have not stood the has been rightly appreciated by s-plaintiffs have failed to prove conclusions drawn by learned aced on record. Once, it is held in the hands of Kalu Ram then any will, the same would be Succession Act i.e. all the three ent case, the Courts have rightly and 3 to have 1/5th share in the hey had executed relinquishment cannot be faulted with merely favour with their sisters. w have been arrived at after due d with this, learned counsel for nd rely upon alleged partition, d to be divided by Kalu Ram said intention of Kalu Ram as o reasons:- and which is subject matter of en in said compromise/partition aintiffs. relied upon to conclude that only intention to divide the land e y e d d n e e y e t y e r , m s f n t d in up ju en ap H illegal and wa

28.05.2000 an marlas was co sons were enti

12.

T never acted up over to the p interference is upon apprecia

13.

A

14.

P

19.01.2026 Sunil Chander

W

W

n four parts, was expressed. H pon, rather, in the same year in udgment and decree in favour ntire joint property measuring 1 ppellants-plaintiffs. However, said judgment and decr as set aside vide judgments and nd it was held that the suit prope o-parcenery properties, which K itled to. Therefore, in present case, it is c pon, neither suit land was divide arties, whose names are mentio s made out. Concurrent finding o ation of evidence. No substantial Appeal is accordingly dismissed. ending application(s), if any, stan

:

:

However, this was never acted 1993, Kalu Ram had sufferred a of appellants-plaintiffs giving 2 kanals 03 marlas in favour of ree was subsequently held to be d decrees dated 28.09.1998 and rty to the extent of 12 kanals 03 Kalu Ram along with his three learly made out that Ex.D1 was ed nor its possession was handed oned in Ex.D1. No ground for of learned Courts below is based question of law arises.

nd disposed of.

(PARMOD GOYAL)

JUDGE d a g f e d

e s d r d )