Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1455
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KULDIP SINGH, J.
Mahabir Singh and another - Appellants
Versus
Shamsher Singh and others - Respondents
RSA No.4050 of 2004 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-04-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sourav Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of family settlement and its impact on adverse possession and limitation in land disputes.
Headnote:
mutation - land dispute - family settlement - adverse possession - limitation - family settlement - mutation of land in favor of Ramji Lal - time barred suit
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession regarding 4/5th share of the land and challenged various mutations and decrees. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the findings on the ground of limitation and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a family settlement between the parties, as a result of which Ramji Lal and his legal heirs became the owner of the land at village Bangaon. The court held that the suit was time barred and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues included co-ownership, possession, validity of the Will, locus standi, jurisdiction, limitation, and mis-joinder of parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was time barred as the mutation of transferring the land in favor of Ramji Lal was not challenged within the limitation period. The court also found that there was a family settlement between the parties, leading to the ownership of the land by Ramji Lal and his legal heirs.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the dismissal of the suit by the first appellate court.
KULDIP SINGH J.
The present regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2004 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fatehabad, vide which in view of the findings recorded on issue Nos.1, 2 and 8, the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Fatehabad, was set aside and suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession regarding 4/5th share of the land measuring 183 kanals 0 marla, as per jamabandi for the year 1995- 96 and 4/5 share of 160/12600 share in No.308 measuring 2 kanal 15 marlas (Gair Mumkin) and also 98/32400 share in No.485 measuring 4 kanal 14 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1995-96 situated in village Bangaon, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. The plaintiffs also sought the declaration that mutation No.2338, dated 26.02.1984, vide which Ramji Lal (now deceased), the predecessor in interest of defendant Nos.1 to 8 got mutated by way of inheritance of Rupa Ram (deceased) on the basis of alleged oral 'Will' is wrong, illegal and liable to be set aside and that the plaintiffs are entitled to take possession of the said land on the basis of inheritance of Rupa Ram (deceased). They have also challenged the mutation No.2633, dated 05.11.1988 sanctioned in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 8 after the death of Sh. Ramjit Lal. They have also sought setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1989 passed in Civil Suit No.1036 of 1989 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Fatehabad, titled as “Subhash etc. vs. Mainawati etc.” and consequential mutation No.2697, dated 04.09.1990. They have further sought the cancellation of release deed No.548, dated 17.05.2000 executed by Subhash, defendant in favour of his son Tarun Kumar-defendant and also release deed No.608, dated 22.05.2000 executed by Krishan Lal-defednat in favour of his son Karan-defendant, as these were executed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 in collusion with each other to jeopardise the rights of ownership of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant Nos.9to 14. The plaintiffs also claimed that they are also entitled to incorporate the name in the revenue record as per ownership.
The pedigree table set up by the plaintiffs is as under”
Tulsa
Lekh Ram
Rupa Ram
Hem Raj
Khayali
Ramji Lal
Reshmi
Bado
Mohri
Plaintiff Nos.1-7
Defendant Nos.1-8
Plaintiff Nos.8-18
Plaintiff Nos.19 & 20
Plaintiff Nos.21 & 22 And proforma defendant Nos.13 & 14
3. It is claimed that Rupa Ram (deceased) had two sons and three daughters, namely, Khayli, Ramji Lal, Reshmi, Bado and Mohri respectively. All the sons and daughters of Rupa Ram have now died and the plaintiffs and proforma defendant Nos.9 to 14 are the legal representatives of Khayali, Reshmi, Bado and Mohri. It is also claimed that after the death of Rupa Ram, his legal heirs are entitled to ownership of 4/5th share each. Ramji Lal was entitled to only 1/5th share.
4. Ramji Lal was very clever and cunning person. He fraudulently and sup pressingly got the mutation of inheritance of Rupa Ram sanctioned in his favour on the basis of oral Will. The said mutation No.2338, dated 26.02.1984 is illegal and liable to be set aside.
5. In this way, Khayali Ram, Reshmi, Bado and legal heirs of Mohri are entitled to 4/5th share by way of natural succession. It was claimed that Rupa Ram had not executed any Will regarding the property. The mutation was got entered in collusion with the revenue officers.
6. It is stated that after the death of Rupa Ram, Ramji Lal, who was the close relative and uncle was allowed to cultivate the whole land. Ramji Lal had been paying the share of the produce to the plaintiffs and after the death of Ramji Lal on 11.07.1988, his sons had been giving the shares of produce to the plaintiffs and proforma defendants. Otherwise also, the land in question was anc
