Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1369
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudip Ahluwalia, J.
Darshan Kaur And Others - Appellant
Vs.
Dilawar Singh - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 1054 of 2008, 80 of 2010
Decided On : 15-05-2019
Vikas Bahl, Adv., Shubreet Kaur, Adv., M.L. Saggar, Adv., Armaan Saggar, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the nullity of a compromise decree regarding ancestral property and its impact on subsequent agreements.
Headnote:
Nullity - Ancestral Property - 2, 6, 9 - The court discussed the nullity of a compromise decree regarding ancestral property and its effect on subsequent agreements. It highlighted the illegality of the decree and its lack of registration, emphasizing that the decree was a nullity on merits. The court also emphasized that a completed sale transaction cannot be compared to a mere agreement, and the agreement in favor of the appellants was unenforceable due to the nullity of the original decree.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over ancestral property, where the plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership and an injunction against interference with the property. The plaintiff alleged that a decree conferring title to the defendants was obtained through a collusive arrangement, making it a nullity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decree conferring title to the defendants was a nullity and that subsequent agreements, including the one in favor of the appellants, were unenforceable due to the nullity of the original decree.
Issues: The issues included the nature of the suit property, the validity of the 1986 decree, and the effect of the agreement of sale in favor of the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decree conferring title to the defendants was a nullity, making subsequent agreements unenforceable. It emphasized that a completed sale transaction cannot be compared to a mere agreement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts and ordering the refund of earnest money and compensation to the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
Sudip Ahluwalia, J.
The Regular Second Appeal No.1054 of 2008 has been preferred against the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar in R.C.A. No.166 of 2006 dated 22.10.2007, vide which the original Judgment & Decree passed by the Ld. Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Phillaur in Civil Suit No.819 of 2003 dated 05.09.2006 in favour of the present Appellants/Plaintiffs were upheld. Another RSA No.80 of 2010 has also been filed against the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Jalandhar in RBT RCA No.149 of 2008 dated 27.07.2009, whereby the original Judgment & Decree passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur in Civil Suit No.593 of 2004 dated 04.04.2006 in favour of the present Appellants/Defendants were modified.
2. These two Appeals were heard by this Court together, since the contesting parties involved in both are by and large the same and the decision on merits in RSA No.80 of 2010 would be vital for determining the fate of RSA No.1054 of 2008. Consequently, the said Appeal, which although is latter in point of time, is taken up for consideration first, as its decision will govern outcome of the other Appeal.
R.S.A. No.80 of 2010
3. The Appellants in this case are the Legal Representatives of deceased Gurmail Ram, who was added as Defendant No.7 in Civil Suit No.593 of 2004 filed by the present Respondent No.1 Mohinder Singh against Respondent Nos.2 to 4, and Resham Singh, son of Joginder Singh (original Defendant No.5/Predecessor-in-interest of present Respondent Nos.5 & 6) and Joginder Singh & Balwant Singh-original Respondent Nos.7 and 8 (since deceased), who were arraigned as Defendant Nos.1 to 6 in the original Suit.
4. In the said Suit, Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 had sought a Declaration to the effect that he along with Respondent/Defendants Joginder Singh & Balwant Singh was the exclusive owner in equal share in possession of 781/1025 Share Measuring 39 Kanals 1 Marla of the suit land situated in village Katana, Tehsil Phillaur as per Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 more fully described in the Heading of the Plaint. Apart from such Declaration, the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 had also prayed for an injunction against Defendants/Respondents Balihar Singh, Karnail Singh and Resham Singh (since deceased) from interfering in his peaceful possession of the suit land, and from alienating the same in any manner to any one.
5. Background of the matter is that the disputed land along with some more lands situated in village Katana originally belonged to one Rattan Singh, who was survived by his two sons namely Hazara Singh and Milkha Singh. After the death of Rattan Singh, an area measuring 51 Kanals 5 Marlas fell in the share of Hazara Singh (father of Plaintiff/Respondent No.1). According to the Plaint case, the land in question was Ancestral, as well as Joint Hindu Family/Coparcenary property, of which his father Hazara Singh became Karta. However, the said Hazara Singh, who died on 24.6.1987, is alleged to have entered into a Collusive Arrangement with his three grandsons (Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4- sons of the Plaintiff himself) and his remaining two sons Joginder Singh and Balwant Singh, and procured a Decree conferring the Title in favour of those Defendants in the absence of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1, which he was not competent to do, since the land in question was inalienable except case of legal necessity being ancestral/coparcenary property. It was his contention therefore, that such Judgment and Decree in favour of Defendants/Respondents was a nullity, which would not have the effect of taking away his own right in the said land.
6. In the interregnum, Respondent Dilawar Singh had entered into an Agreement of Sale in favour of Gurmail Ram for an area measuring 3 Kanals, out of the 1/4th share, which had come to him on the strength of the impugned Judgment dated 16.1.1986. The said Gurmail Ram thereafter filed a Suit f
