Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 3194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
Chand Rup – Appellant
Vs.
Parsanni – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 3830 of 1987 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-07-2016
For the Appellant : R.K. Gupta
For the Respondent: Sandeep Singh
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 14(i) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the absolute ownership of the suit property vested in defendant No.1, and the family settlement and adverse possession claims of the plaintiffs were discarded for want of evidence.
Headnote:
inheritance - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14(i) - Section 14(2) - Act of 1937 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants regarding the ownership of a land. The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on a family settlement and adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement dated 13.04.1961 was not proved to have been entered by the defendant No.1 and even if this agreement is considered to be validly executed, it has no effect on the alienation of the suit property by defendant No.1 as she was the absolute owner of the suit property under Section 14(i) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court also held that the plaintiffs never came into possession of the suit land on the basis of the family settlement and their claim of adverse possession was discarded for want of evidence. The court also held that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable as the subject matter of the earlier suit filed by them was different than the subject matter of this suit. The plaintiffs were held to be legal heirs of defendant No.1. The suit of the plaintiffs was ultimately dismissed.
Issues: The issues included the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, the existence and terms of the family settlement, the validity of the sale deeds and lease deed, the possession of the suit land, and the maintainability of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the settlement dated 13.04.1961 had no effect on the alienation of the suit property by defendant No.1 as she was the absolute owner of the suit property under Section 14(i) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court also found that the plaintiffs never came into possession of the suit land on the basis of the family settlement and their claim of adverse possession was discarded for want of evidence. The court also held that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable as the subject matter of the earlier suit filed by them was different than the subject matter of this suit.
Final Decision: The plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed as the court found no legal or factual infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below.
Surinder Gupta, J.
Appellants-plaintiffs filed suit claiming the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as follows:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the lease deed dated 28.1.81 and sale deeds dated 6.2.81 and 6.3.81 may kindly be set aside and to declare them as null and void, not binding on the plaintiffs as being ultra-virus, wrong, illegal and against law and natural justice, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, or in the alternative a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land by way of their being in adverse possession as is mentioned in para No.15-A of the plaint and according to the revenue entries, be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
It is, therefore, requested that a decree for permanent injunction as a consequential relief be also passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining them to alienate or to dispose of the suit land in any way or manner and also not to take forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs except in due course of law."
2. Pedigree table as given in para 2 of the plaint will help in understanding the plea of plaintiffs and the relationship of the parties, is as follows:-
xxxxxxxxxx
3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that Smt. Parsanni, defendant No. 1 widow of Surta son of Turti is recorded as owner of land measuring 84 kanals 14 marlas as described in para 1 of the plaint. Plaintiffs are the sons of Lalji son of Harnam, common ancestor of the parties. Parsanni, defendant No.1 inherited the suit property from Smt. Maro, her mother-in-law. She used to get the suit land cultivated through plaintiffs as she was their real cousin's brother's wife (Bhabhi) and was issueless. There was a dispute regarding cultivation and crops over the suit land and Panchayat was convened in the year 1961 in village Bhuran and a family settlement was arrived at between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, the terms of which are as follows:-
"(i) Plaintiffs will cultivate the suit land owned by defendant No. 1 Parsanni, throughout her life time.
(ii) Defendant No.1 Parsanni will receive (get) Rs. 200/- per year from the plaintiffs throughout her life as her maintenance.
(iii) Besides this, plaintiffs will also provide residential house for living for her life time.
(iv) Defendant No.1 will not be entitled to transfer or alienate the suit land and residential house by way of sale, mortgage, lease or any other way during her life time.
(v) The amount of Rs. 200/- will be paid to defendant No.1 in the month of Phagan (March) every year against receipt."
4. This family settlement was reduced in writing on 13.04.1961. Plaintiffs paid Rs. 1,000/- to defendant No.1 as maintenance for five years in the presence of witnesses and thereafter sent Rs. 200/- per year by money orders till 1980 but she did not receive the same. Defendant No.1 filed an application in the year 1965 in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jind seeking partition of her share in the suit land but failed in view of the family settlement dated 13.04.1961 as is apparent from order dated 22.12.1965 passed by Collector, Jind. The parties were directed to get the question of their title decided from the competent Court. Thereafter, Smt. Parsanni filed civil suit in the Court of then Senior Sub Judge, Jind seeking declaration of her share in the suit land but that suit bearing No.315 of 1970 got abated due to death of Smt. Chhoto. Thereafter, Smt. Parsanni neither filed any suit seeking declaration of title of share in the suit property nor she could seek any such declaration in view of settlement dated 13.04.1961 which has attained finality and is binding on defendant No.1.
5. Despite having knowledge of settlement dated 13.04.1961, Smt. Parsanni, defendant No.1 sold the suit land vide registered sale deeds dated 06.02.1981 and 06.03.1981 t
