IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
Mukhtiar Singh - Appellant
Vs.
Pritam Singh and another - Respondents
RSA No.4840 of 2016
Decided On : 19-09-2016
Property Dispute - Partition - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 51 - Family Settlement - Permanent Injunction - Evidence Admissibility
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a property dispute between two brothers over the partition of a house in a village. The plaintiff sought separate possession of a 3 marla plot out of the total suit property, while the defendant claimed ownership and raised objections based on a family settlement and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to separate possession through partition as per the revenue record. The court also held that the defendant's reliance on the family settlement and the Transfer of Property Act was not substantiated, and the evidence presented by both parties was appraised to determine admissibility.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the entitlement to separate possession, permanent injunction, and the validity of the family settlement and evidence presented by both parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the evidence presented, including the revenue record, family settlement, and the admissibility of documents. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's entitlement to partition was supported by the evidence, while the defendant's objections were not substantiated.
Final Decision: The court passed a preliminary decree for separate possession by way of partition in favor of the plaintiff, while dismissing the suit for permanent injunction. The appeal filed by the defendant was also dismissed.
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
This is the second appeal of the 1st defendant in a suit filed by his brother (presently respondent no.1), seeking separate possession of the suit property by way of partition in metes and bounds. The property is stated to be a house allocated within the village Abadi of village Khara, Tehsil and District Faridkot, fully described in the impugned judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot. The respondent-plaintiff sought exclusive possession of a 3 marla plot out of the total suit property, in which 15 marlas were stated to be occupied by the 3rd brother, respondent no.2 (presently a proforma respondent in this appeal), on which defendant no.2 was stated to have also constructed a separate house.
It was contended by the plaintiff that he was, in fact, residing in the joint house constructed by him with defendant no.1 and that now he wished to have his separate possession over his share, to which the 1st defendant was not agreeing and was bent upon constructing further on the property.
Consequently, a decree of permanent injunction was also sought.
2. In reply to the notice issued to him, defendant no.1 filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff was neither a co-sharer nor in possession of any part of the suit property and that it had not even been properly described, with no site plan attached thereto.
It was further contended that the property was, in fact, owned by defendant no.1, on which he had constructed his residential house by spending a huge amount 20 years earlier (the suit having been filed on 13.08.2010).
The plaintiff had raised no objection to the construction and in fact, the defendant had raised it believing that he was himself the owner thereof and as such, he claimed protection under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Yet further, it was contended that the defendant and his family are illiterate whereas the plaintiff is residing in the USA since long and that he (plaintiff) had allured the defendant and his wife with migration to USA and he had obtained their thumb impressions on various papers.
Taking benefit of their illiteracy, he got executed sale deeds of their land, which they challenged by filing a civil suit, after which a family settlement/compromise was effected between the parties in the USA itself, in respect of which a memorandum was executed.
As per the terms of the compromise, the defendant and his wife were to withdraw the suits filed by them and the plaintiff was not to harass them in the USA and not to claim any share or right in agricultural land, residence or other immovable properties in India.
3. Acting on that compromise, it was further stated in the written statement, that the defendant and his wife withdrew the civil suit filed by them and therefore, in terms of the compromise, the plaintiff has no right or interest in the suit land, which remained with the defendant and as such, he was not entitled to seek separate possession or partition of the property and further, that the suit was also bad in view of the partial partition sought. Preliminary objections with regard to valuation, jurisdiction, maintainability etc. were also taken by the present appellant-1st defendant.
4. A replication having been filed by the respondent-plaintiff, denying the contents of the written statement, the following issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge:-
“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to separate possession through partition of the suit land as alleged? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is not in possession of any part of suit land as per family settlement effected between the parties? OPD
4. Relief.”
5. By way of evidence, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and by way of documentary evidence, produced the following documents:-
| Ex.P1 | Copy of jama |
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.