High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/3140/2014dismissed

Rukmani Devi & ORS. v. Kamla Rani & ORS.

2022-07-25Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal22 pages

!"# $%#$& ' (

#)#$*#%+& ' (

,-.!+/#*/!+%"0#$) 11#22!+") 3#$),) 4!.2!!+/!+%"0#$) #)1+%#+") &5 6 64 6

$#)#+"& $!+7/*,1"!8%*9!"#8 $"0#!11#22!+") $0#"!+/""!28$%*9!"#8:/"0 $)0!+,1"!8%*9!"#!+% $4,+!2,2:!+/8%*9!"#8

$"0#$#)1+%#+")

! "# $$ "$# % & '

!" #$%&&""%'( ! ( )

* ' *,-

! )* +

* ! . *

,- 01 ) / '

2 .. (3 0(1 ) * * '3 4

/ 5

,- 6'

7 *8 '9 8 6 ( '': '

8 '9 8 6 + 7 ! 6 7 78 6'

7 *8 6

% 8 '9 4% 8 '9

;

79 * < .

* *

*,-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = = =

01 01 01 #$!"45 = = = 6'

7 )8 6 *

--:

7 :

' 7 01 0* *

1 0*1 077,$("#<1 07-1 07-!1 0$<$5"<!1 = = = ---------------------------------------------------------- =

: '

---> : '

"("#$ 010*

1 01 ' 1 = 07-(1 07-51 = = = = = = --------------------------------------- = ==== = '9

6 = 0 10 = 6'

7 = 0-10-+10-!1 = = = = = = = ----------------------------------------------- =

': '

= 0-(107-510-41 = ---------------------------------- = =

: '

6 07-!107-41 #

' '

#$!"45

' 6'

7 **

6 "45 ' * '<$5"45

"45' & '

' 7 &

8 / '

' 6'

7 *

' 4$6

'+<6

' 7 0** & '1 ? *

0 1 ':

' 7 $<$5"<! * ' *

' 6'

7 ? )

* '

/ ($(""$ '9

' 6'

7 0

' +<6

$$#"4$* ($$#""5.* '

' 6'

* * ! "452 #(($$

* ' . * * ' 6'

7 *

' +<

2+$<($$+

,- "(Suit for possession of joint possession to the extent of 1/3 share of the following lands:-

1. Land measuring 222Kls. 71s. Bearing Khewat no.356, Khatauni No.408, 407 Rect. 29, Killa No.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19/1, 24/2, Rect. 31, Killa No.24, 25/1 Rect. 32 Killa No.19/2, 20/3, 21, 22, 24/2, 25, Rect. 47, Killa No.4/2, 4/3, 5, Rect No.80 Killa No.10/3, Rect 71, Killa No.23, 24, 25, Rect. 80 Killa No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12/1, 13/1, 14/1/2, 15/1, 26.

2. Land measuring 171 Kls. 4 Mls. Bearing Khewat No.358, Khatauni 410, Rect. 32, Killa No.23, 24/1, Rect. 47, Killa No.1, 2, 4/1, 6, 7, 11/2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19/1, 26, Rect No.48, Killa No.4, 5/1, 5/2, 6, 7, 13, 14, Rect. 48, Killa No.15/1, 15/2, 326, 327, 332 as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1997-98, situated in the area of village Jadla the & Distt. Nawanshahr.) " " .

+5 +

,- !

!# "

$# %

& '! !

(

$ # #

) # "

) # ! !

# ! !

' !

!! !

! !

) # "

) #

! !

(

$ $ *

* '*

' '9 * 2

* ,- 1.

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession to the extent of 1/3 rd share of the suit property, as alleged?OPP 2.

Whether the pedigree table mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint is correct?OPP 3.

Whether the plaintiffs have succeeded qua land of Surjan Singh?OPP 4.

Whether the plaintiffs have been come into possession on any part of the suit property after the death of Surjan Singh? If so its effect?OPP 5.

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 6.

Whether the plaintiffs are barred by their act and conduct to file the present suit under order 2 rule 2 CPC?OPD 7.

Whether the custom of Riwaj-i-am was prevailing interest the parties, as alleged?OPD No.1 8.

Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties?OPD

; 9.

Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD 10.

Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 11.

Whether the counter claimants are entitled for declaration as alleged?OPCC

12. Whether the counter claimants are coparceners and governed under Hindu Succession Act, 1956?OPCC 13.

Whether the counter-claimants are entitled for joint possession as alleged?OPCC 14.

Whether the counter-claimants are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPCC 15.

Whether the counter-claimants are entitled for possession in the alternative, as alleged?OPCC 16.

Whether the counter-claim is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPCR 17.

Relief.

The following additional issue was framed vide order dated 14.05.2009:- 16A. Whether Rukman Devi during her lifetime in sound disposing mind executed will dated 19.12.1980 in favour of her sons Som Nath and Avtar Singh?OPP"

( 2

% '

' *

' *)

"("#$

6 + . ?

'7)

@ ** * 6 6* A

B?7 % * ?

' 7)( 6%

'* ?

' 7)+ 7)!

1 !

( *

2 (

( . -

4 C

* % 0

* ,- "His cross examination reveals certain vital points. In his cross examination, he stated that he did not know if Surjan Singh died on 18.04.1956. He did not know if the suit property was self purchased by Surjan Singh or not. He did not know if the property in the hands of Surjan Singh was ancestral coparcenary property. Therefore, it is strange that the plaintiffs, who have filed the instant suit, did not know even the date of death of Surjan Singh through whom they claimed to have succeeded the suit land. Further he did not even know whether the suit land regarding which they have filed the present suit, was self purchased by Surjan Singh or not.

This statement of Jasbir Singh shows that he had no idea about the date of death of Surjan Singh and even the nature of the suit property whether it was self purchased by Surjan singh or not. So much so, he did not even know if the property in the hands of Surjan Singh was ancestral coparcenary property. This statement of the plaintiff puts the very case of the plaintiffs into doubt and clearly shows that plaintiff Jasbir Singh, who shouldered the burden of proving the case of all the plaintiffs, did not know even the date of death of their predecessor Surjan Singh and he did not even know whether the suit land was self purchased by Surjan singh or not and even did not know whether the property in the hands of Surjan singh was ancestral coparcenary property.

Further he admitted that earlier a suit was filed titled as Som Nath and others vs. Swaran Singh and also admitted that the said suit related to the land measuring 37 kanals. Regarding this land even, he did not know if the said land was owned by Surjan Singh or not.

< in favour of Rukmani Devi by Surjan Singh or not and admitted that the said suit was decided on 20.08.1996 by the court of Sh. Karamjit Singh, the then learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Nawanshahr and according to him, the said suit was not filed regarding the present suit property and he volunteered that they were in possession of that portion of land and he did not know whether their possession was reflected in the record or not. Not only this, he even admitted that Rukmani Devi died in the year 1987 and she did not file any suit regarding the suit land, subject matter of the suit during her lifetime. It is also strange that Rukmani Devi the daughter of Surjan Singh, through whom the plaintiffs claimed to have received the suit property, never filed any suit regarding the suit land/subject matter of this suit her lifetime.

He did not know if after the death of Surjan singh till 1987, the mutation was sanctioned regarding the suit property in favour of Rukmani Devi or not. He did not know if the mutation of inheritance of Surjan Singh was sanctioned in favour of Arjan Singh and Kashmir Devi in the year 1958 or not. He did not know if any entry was made regarding ownership or possession of Som Nath and Avtar Singh after the death of Rukmani Devi till date. He admitted that at present the suit property is reflected in the ownership and in possession of Swaran Singh and his sons, however volunteered that earlier his mother was in possession of the suit land. Further in his cross examination Jasbir Singh has admitted that Ralla ram @ Ralla had three sons, i.e.

, Surjan Singh, Arjan Singh and Banta and admitted that Kashmir Kaur was the wife of Banta and admitted that the consolidation in the village took place in the year 1956. Further he admitted that Ralla had sons belonging to Hindu Rajput clan Jalandhar District and admitted that the suit property was an agricultural land. He also admitted that the present suit was filed after the decision of civil suit No.803 of 1991, decided on 20.08.1996."

5 C

= ' 6'

' +<6

' $$#"4$ '

$("#<* #$!"45

2 .. ( < &

* 6 *

* * /

' #

* * '

2 .. ( '

.. (

'6 ** ' ' ' ,!-.)/.0. !!1 -/

0. #$#$ 2 !"!

" - 3$3 )- !

) %45$"%&% * D *. "(" )' "+< ' ' '

' '

' ' ,!-.)/.

2 .. ( ' ' / / !7- #$%4&""

&#%

' *

/ *

' * ' ./-8 -6 ! / #$$4"2%%'

0**

!/ #$%4 3 !"!

" -&'$! '

' 6

' 6'

7 '

"0#> 36 6 !% ($ C /

2 .. (' ?

B?7.

'9 0 ' 6'

7 1

' 6'

7 ?

$$#"4$ ' 6'

7 *

' +<6

' 6'

7 *

' ' 6'

* '

* .

* ?

,- "8. That the plaintiff asked the defendant No.1 to admit the claim of plaintiff as the plaintiff are the owners and in possession of the suit land as a consequential relief defendant No.1 was asked not to eject the plaintiff forcilbly but he has refused to the land two days. The cause of action has arisen for the land two days. The plaintiff also asked the defendant No.1 that if he ejects the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, then he should deliver possession of the land as owner in the alternative."

($( 2

: '

* . 0 / 1

5. ' ''

2 ..

( '

2 .. (* '

' C % &9

0: !1

- %4&3 /"

%5%$

5$ ' ,!-.)/.0. !!1 -/0. #$#$""

;-"'53

**?

,- (+2 .. ( '

' 2 .. ( 0(1

' ' /

' ' * '

' ' ' '

6 *

** ' '

' ' *2 .. (0(1 2 ..

(0+1'

* *

/ '

' '

* *'

'' '

' 6 ?* *

/ 6 **

2 .. (01 *

' * / '

2 .. (0(1) '

* ? > . 0B101D > 01D($+ 01 5(4.

*, ,-

. #

#$ 0

.121#$

0 #

. "

.3.4

# #

# -

.34

.3.4 34121

. #

' '

E ($+

/ / !7- #$%4&""&#%

. *

? ' *

? . /

2 .. (

' '

* . ' ' / /

' * / 2 .. (

!# ($!

9* & ?

' F * * * ' 3E ($4 / ' '?/

+ 5 +

: '

' *6 / '

($5 % 0

1 '

6 % ?

' --?

,- "Surjan Singh s/o Rala was the owner of 1/3 share in land indispute situated of village Jadla. Surjan Singh s/o Rala died about some years ago and on the death of Surjan Singh, his daughter Smt. Rukmani Devi was alive and she succeeded to the estate of Surjan Singh as she was the only heir of Surjan Singh under/custom and also

' under Hindu Law and Sarwan Singh deft. did not succeed to the estate of Surjan Singh and he could not succeed. Swaran Singh defdt. No.1 took possession of the land owned by Surjan Singh taking undue advantage of being Rukmani Devi is dead."

($< . -?

' '

6**

#$!"45 *

' / +<6

' * '

* * /

' 6* * * ' ' * * .

' 0 ' 6'

7 '9 1 * 8+

#$!"45 * '

' 7 0** & '1 ':

' 7

"<!

* ' '

* --

* *

' ($# : * !<

. ' 6'

7 '

;

($(""$* * * ' (+$4""$

? *

* +

' ($"

4# D' "5+* ,- <* 6 + +-/ /+

/)*6 0

($$ ? '+F E ? '* ' *

'. *

#$!"45

($(""$*

($ : *

' ($( . '

/ '

7 & '

= 6 0. !/ %45'

( )

- 5#

' 2

' &

* 6 !" %452 "

)

- 32#! .

,- /

# #

9 .:6; :6<=

.+ ;

,>( #

% !

; #

($+ ) 7 &

5 * '

* * '* * '' .* ?

' *

7 & '

>* * (

' * *

*** .

' /

* D' "5+

' / / '

'?/

* /

($!

' 6'

' ' 6'

' 6

' ' 6'

"#<

B ' 6'

"#<

6 '

($$+.

' 6'

. ' *

' ' ($4 2("$($4 * '

4 8

;

& !

;

= ,>(

?34 &

; @

4 8

# 2

@ ($5

/ ?

'8+

' 6'

7 * *

. *

/ * 2

' ' 0(1 *

* /

*0101

( '

* /

' * .

* ?

* ? *"5$

($$$) '

,- "The sales have been made in favour of bawa Singh son of Chhaja Singh, Swaran Singh son of Mangal Singh son of Gujjar, Nek Singh Ajit Singh son of Nagina, Shiv Singh Kehar Singh sons of Basant Singh by Kashmir Devi. The

property was also mortgaged by Surjan Singh in favour of Bishan Singh, mangu as well as in favour of Swarna and bachna by the other legal heirs. Rukman Devi is shown in possession of residential portion within the ambit of Tamleek Nama. The property was also sold by legal heirs to Babu son of Mangu, Karma Bachna sons of Chhaju, Waryama and others, Kirpa son of Chetu, Niku, Beeru sons of Chanan, Bagtu Gokul sons of Niku, Isher Singh, Jaimal Amiya sons of Raja, Dalip, Sheru, Santa son of Road, Jagu son of Telu, Nanda son of Rodu, Jaggu son of Telu, Sadhu, Milkhi, Sansara sons of Fakira, Dheru son of Hamira, Pagu, Sheru son of Hamira, Chuhar son of Vazira.

The property is also mortgaged in favour of Kishna, Jawala, Kartara, Bakshish Singh son of Prem Singh, Swaran son of Mangal, Jawala son of Hakam, Joginder son of Hazura, Kesra son of Teja, Koda son of Rulda, Hazara son of Khushal Singh, Mangal, Singh, Rai Singh son of Suchet Singh and no reference is made either in the pleadings or in the evidence whether these sales which were being made by the contesting defendants and their names being entered in the column of ownership as well as possession, show clear ouster of Rukman Devi and thereafter sales being made were within knowledge of the plaintiffs or not. Not even reference has been made to the above said sales and mortgages. From the revenue entries, it is apparent that some part of the property was agricultural and some part of the property was residential.

Now the nature of the property which is falling within the area of Jadla apparently has been changed as most of the property is now abadi and different above said purchasers after purchase of property on the basis of entries in the revenue record appears to be in possession and they have not been made party in this case."

((

' 7 *

: '

* /

. *

* / *

* / '

' ? !1 #$%$3 !"!

" -3%4 . * / ?

' '0* 1''"<+ /

< ' *

/ ' ' '

(+ '

*' (!

'' 6.* '

"45!<

' '

' (4 /

' (5 . * G (

' (<

'"0 ,2?8

64 6 +"

@0#"0#$)1#!-/+AB$#!)+#% & B @0#"0#$$#1$"!C2# & B