SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(P&H) 1395

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sabina, J.
Ram Chander Etc.
Versus
Jita
R.S.A. No. 2018 of 2006,
Decided On : AUGUST 12, 2009

The application of res judicata and the binding nature of previous judgments and decrees in determining ownership and possession of the disputed property.

Headnote:

Plaintiffs - Property Dispute - Exchange Deed dated 7.4.1961, Mutation, Partition, Family Settlement - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 115; Indian Limitation Act, 1963, Section 3; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 35-A

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership of the disputed property, which was earlier owned by Prabhu and Randhir. Defendant No.1 filed a suit claiming 1/6th share in the same property. Plaintiffs' suit was decreed, and they filed objections against the mutation in favor of defendant No.1. The Revenue Authorities sanctioned the mutation in favor of defendant No.1. Plaintiffs then filed a suit seeking declaration that the previous decrees and mutations were illegal and void.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 were held to be owners in possession of 1/6th share each in the suit land in a previous suit. The court also noted that the judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 did not involve defendant No.1 and, therefore, could not nullify the previous judgment and decree.

Issues: 1. Validity of previous judgments and mutations 2. Plaintiffs' exclusive possession of the suit property 3. Maintainability of the suit 4. Application of res judicata 5. Relief

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the previous judgments and mutations were legal and binding, as they were based on the findings of ownership and possession in a previous suit. The court also found that the judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 did not involve defendant No.1 and, therefore, could not nullify the previous judgment and decree.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court found no substantial question of law warranting interference.

Judgment

Sabina, J.

1. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction that they were absolute owners in possession of the house, plot and site of shop described in the head note of the plaint. It was further prayed that the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 309/1 of 1986 dated 11.5.1991 and maintained an appeal by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak on 4.9.1992 were illegal null and void. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.2004. The appeal filed by plaintiffs was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.2005. Hence, the present appeal.

2. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, read as under :-

"Case of the plaintiffs/appellants (here-in-after called the plaintiff) as emerging out from their plaint is that plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 Jaipal are the sons of defendant no. 3. They were members of Joint Hindu Family uptill 1970. A residential house, a gher/plot and site for shop, detailed and described in para no. 1 of the plaint and shown by alphabets ABCD, EFGH, and IJKL, respectively and shown in red colour in the site plan, attached with the plaint and situated in village Chamariyan (here-in-after called the property in dispute) were initially the part of agricultural land bearing Khewat No. 246/233, Khatoni No. 387, Rect. no. 32 Killa NO. 19/2 (6-12), 20/1 (2-12), total measuring 9 Kanals 4 Marlas. It was owned and possessed by Prabhu and Randhir etc. It was taken in exchange by defendant no. 2, defendant no. 3 and one Chhailu, from Prabhu and Randhir etc. vide Exchange Deed dated 7.4.1961. In lieu of the land in dispute, defendant no. 2 and said Chhailu gave two houses plots comprised in Khasra No. 27//15/11 & 27/15/12 to Parbhu and Randhir etc. Likewise defendant no. 3 gave one residential house measuring 46 Sq. yards and plot comprised in Khasra No. 27/15/10 measuring 0-8 Marlas to Prabhu and Randhir etc. in that exchange. The parties to the exchange took the possession of their respective exchanged properties. On the basis of the exchange, Mutation was sanctioned on 29.1.1962. In this way, defendant no. 2 defendant No. 3 and said Chhailu had become owner-in possession in equal shares of the property in dispute. Thereafter, the joint properties of defendants no. 2, defendant No. 3 and said Chhailu were partitioned through an oral partition. The property in dispute fell to the share of defendant no. 3 whereas the other properties fell to the shares of defendant no. 2 and said Chhailu. The parties to the partition took possession of the properties which had fallen to their respective shares and became owner in possession of the same as reflected in the Jambandi for the year 1987-88. In this way, the plaintiffs/defendants No. 3 and 4 being the members of the Joint Hindu Family became co-sharers in possession of the property in dispute. In the year 1970 a family settlement took place, herein the properties of Joint Hindu Family, constituted by the plaintiffs and defendants no. 3 and 4 were partitioned. In that family settlement, the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 got the property in dispute and became absolute owners of the property in dispute. Defendant No.3 ceased to have any interest in the same. However, in the Revenue Record, the property in dispute continued to be standing in the name of Gugan, Thereafter, plaintiffs and defendant no. 4 had constructed residential house and a room on the plot and also installed a tubewell. The plaintiffs are residing in that residential house since the date of its construction. The plot is being used by them as Gher for tethering cattle and for the storing fodder etc. Defendant No.1 without any right or interest in the land in dispute comprised in Rect. No. 32 Killa NO. 19/2 (6- 12) and 20/1(2-12) i.e. the part of the land in d












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top