Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S. Madaan, J.
Darbara Singh (since deceased) through his LRs - Appellants - Appellant
Versus
Jarnail Singh and others - Respondents - Respondent
RSA-423 of 1997 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-05-2023
Collusive Decree - Property Dispute - Indian Evidence Act, Sections 67 and 68 - Transfer of Property Act, Section 52 - Judgment dated 19.09.1986 - The court discussed the collusive nature of the decree, the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens, and the genuineness of the Will based on compromise among the beneficiaries.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sought a declaration that a High Court order and mutation of inheritance were not binding on their ownership rights due to collusion between the defendants. They also sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from implementing the decree. The defendants denied the allegations and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs without costs, allowing the defendants to file a fresh suit for possession based on a registered Will. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, and the present Regular Second Appeal was dismissed by the court.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the plaintiffs' land purchase, the applicability of lis pendens, the collusiveness of the High Court decree, the maintainability of the suit, valuation for court fee and jurisdiction, entitlement to special costs, and the plaintiffs' entitlement to the declaration and injunction prayed for.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the defendants failed to prove fraud and misrepresentation by the plaintiffs, and that the doctrine of lis pendens was not applicable due to the collusive nature of the proceedings. The court also held that a Will declared to be genuine on the basis of compromise among the beneficiaries cannot be acted upon, and the compromise cannot exclude evidence required to prove the Will.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law and upholding the impugned judgments.
H.S. MADAAN, J.
In nutshell, facts of the case are that plaintiffs Jarnail Singh, Shinder Singh, Baltej Singh, Jagtar Singh sons of Jangir Singh had brought a suit against defendants Darbara Singh, Mukand Singh, Jarnail Singh sons of Lahora Singh, Bibi (daughter of Jai Kaur) widow of Gurdial Singh, Kello (daughter of Jai Kaur) wife of Karnail Singh and Sham Kaur (daughter of Jai Kaur) widow of Gurnam Singh seeking a declaration that order dated 19.09.1986 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana is not binding on the ownership rights of plaintiffs being collusive between defendants Darbara Singh, Mukand Singh and Jarnail Singh and mutation of inheritance No.3578 dated 09.09.1987 is null and void besides seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from executing, implementing the impugned decree in any manner for the reason that the plaintiffs had purchased the land fully described in headnote of the plaint vide two sale deeds dated 06.02.1986 for an area of 14K-17M and 15K-16M respectively and since then, they have been in actual possession of the purchased land; originally the land was purchased by Jai Kaur mother of the defendants who had died leaving behind registered Will dated 19.03.1966 in favour of Mukand Singh; after her death, mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in the name of Darbara Singh, Jarnail Singh, Mukand Singh, Bibi, Kello and Sham Kaur; one of the defendants Darbara Singh had filed a civil suit No.274 dated 09.05.1980 claiming the entire land on the basis of a Will dated 25.06.1974 said to have been executed by Jai Kaur in his favour; that suit was decided on 17.03.1983 in which the Will set up by Mukand Singh was accepted whereas the Will propounded by Darbara Singh was rejected; the appeal against that judgment was dismissed by Addl. District Judge on 31.07.1985; thereafter, mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Mukand Singh on 28.01.1986; Darbara Singh had filed a Regular Second Appeal before High Court, however, during pendency of that appeal, Darbara Singh in collusion with Mukand Singh and Jarnail Singh produced a registered Will dated 21.01.1973 allegedly executed by his mother Jai Kaur which was admitted by defendants Mukand Singh and Jarnail Singh without its genuineness being proved; in view of that, the High Court vide judgment dated 19.09.1986 declared Darbara Singh, Mukand Singh and Jarnail Singh owners in equal share.
According to the plaintiffs, they were not party to those proceedings and were not having knowledge of the same. Furthermore, Mukand Singh had no interest in the suit at the time of making the statement and he had no authority to compromise the matter in dispute and Will dated 21.01.1973 was not a genuine document; the original suit was not based on the said Will, therefore, on the basis of Will dated 21.01.1973, decree could not passed, as such, it is not binding upon the plaintiffs but when the defendants were adamant to execute and implement the collusive decree and dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly, the plaintiffs filed the suit in question.
2. On being put to notice, out of all the defendants, defendants No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel filing written statements whereas defendants No.3 to 6 did not appear despite service, as such were proceeded against ex parte. In the written statement filed by defendants No.1 and 2, they denied all the allegations in the plaint and raised legal objections. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. Plaintiffs filed replication controverting the allegations in the written statement whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
2. Whether the sale in favour of defendants is hit by the rule of lis pendance? OPD.
3. Whether the decree dated 19.09.1986 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is collusive and not binding on the
The court emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness of a Will and the inapplicability of the doctrine of lis pendens in collusive decree situations.
The court affirmed that a decree binds successors-in-interest unless declared void, and collusion in prior judgments affects the applicability of the doctrine of lis pendens.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the genuineness of a Will and the need for timely legal action in property disputes.
Temporary injunction—In order to succeed in application for grant of temporary injunction, plaintiffs are required to show not only existence of a prima facie and arguable case in their favour, but t....
To succeed in an application for temporary injunction, the party seeking the injunction must show a prima facie and arguable case, demonstrate the balance of convenience, and prove irreparable loss a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
