Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2471
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Daya Chaudhary, J.
Hardev Singh – Appellant
Vs.
Bhan Singh – Respondent
RSA No. 2141 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 23-03-2017
For the Appellant :Amjad Khan and Anureet S. Sidhu, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper proof of ancestral and coparcenary property in property disputes, the need for evidence of birth right, and adherence to the limitation period for challenging sale deeds.
Headnote:
Delay - Property Dispute - 1. Hindu Law, 2. Limitation Act - [Hindu Law, Limitation Act] - The court discussed the Hindu Law and the Limitation Act in the context of property dispute, emphasizing the need for proof of ancestral and coparcenary property, legal necessity for alienation, and the limitation period for challenging sale deeds.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a suit for possession and declaration of land as Hindu joint family, coparcenary, and ancestral property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court. The present appeal was filed to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property in dispute was not proved to be ancestral and coparcenary, and the appellants failed to establish their birth right over the property. It was also held that the suit was not maintainable and was filed after the expiry of the limitation period. The appeal was dismissed for being devoid of merit.
Issues: The issues included the nature of the disputed property, the right of the plaintiff over the property, the legality of alienation, the threat of further alienation, the maintainability of the suit, and the limitation period for challenging the sale deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the appellants to prove the property as ancestral and coparcenary, the lack of evidence for their birth right, and the filing of the suit after the limitation period. The court also emphasized the need for proper proof of property nature and the importance of adhering to the limitation period for challenging sale deeds.
Final Decision: The present appeal was dismissed for being devoid of any merit.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
CM No. 5581-C of 2015
There is delay of 46 days in filing the present appeal.
Application is allowed as per the grounds mentioned therein and delay of 46 days in filing this appeal is condoned.
RSA No. 2141 of 2015
2. The present appeal has been filed by L.Rs. of deceased-Hardev Singh to challenge impugned judgment and decree dated 11.12.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur as well as judgment and decree dated 23.08.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession to the extent of 1/6th share of land and also for declaration that the land in dispute is Hindu joint family, coparcenary and ancestral property. The sale deeds dated 03.05.2001, 07.05.2001, 09.05.2001, 10.05.2001 and 14.05.2001 were executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 without legal necessity and not for benefit of estate. It was done without consent of coparceners and same are stated to be illegal, null and void and were liable to be set-aside. It was also prayed in the suit that the mutation numbers of said sale deeds were also liable to be struck down. A further prayer was also made for restraining defendant No.2 from further alienating the suit property by way of sale, mortgage or lease etc. The suit was contested by the respondents-defendants by filing written statement stating therein that it was neither ancestral nor coparcenary property and the plaintiffs were not having any right over the property. Defendant-Bhan Singh performed marriage of his daughter and the amount spent on marriage was borrowed. It was to be returned by way of sale consideration. The said suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.08.2012.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, an appeal was filed before the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 11.12.2014.
5. After losing the battle before the two Courts below, the present appeal has been filed by raising various grounds.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are not based on proper appreciation of evidence as the appellants-plaintiffs placed number of documents in evidence but all those documents were not taken into consideration. It was in the form of certified copies of mutation of sale of the suit land. The appellants-plaintiffs also produced certified copies of the jamabandi for the year 1911-12 wherein Nawab Sahib Malerkotla was recorded as owner of the suit land but in the column of Dakhilkar the name of Nariana son of Nand Singh was recorded showing 'self cultivation'. Learned counsel further submits that the said jamabandi has not been referred to by the Courts below. Father of Bhan Singh-defendant was recorded as Dakhilkar and he subsequently, became owner of this land by virtue of law. Ex.P-7 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1955-56 wherein Amar Singh, Bhagat Singh and Bhan Singh sons of Narayan Singh were recorded as owner in equal shares. It clearly shows and proves that property in dispute was developed upon Bhan Singh and his brothers in succession from his father Nariana. Both the Courts below have given finding that no evidence was produced by the plaintiffs to show that they were having 1/6th share by birth. A wrong finding has been recorded by both the Courts below that the property in dispute was self acquired by deceased-Bhan Singh whereas there was no documentary evidence to show that Bhan Singh acquired the property by any other means except through inheritance from his father Narayan Singh. Other documents were also on record to show that the property in dispute was joint Khewat and was duly partitioned between three brothers. At the end, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiff-Hardev Singh (now deceased) was son of deceased-Bhan Singh
