Madhubala And Another v. Kunti Devi And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (1) RSA-5211-2018 (O&M) Madhubala and another ...Appellants
Versus
Kunti Devi and others
...Respondents
(2) RSA-5217-2018 (O&M) Madhubala and another ...Appellants
Versus
Bhagwan and others
...Respondents
Date of Pronouncement:-21.12.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
H.S. MADAAN , J.
By this judgment, I intend to dispose of above mentioned two appeals arising out of the same judgment. 2.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiffs Madhubala, daughter and Darshna Devi, wife of Sh. Bhagwan son of Parma Nand, both resident of Village Kharak Kala, Tehsil & District Bhiwani had brought a suit for declaration against Sh. Bhagwan and others on the averments that suit land measuring 20K-18M situated
at Village Kharak Kala, Tehsil & District Bhiwani had been a joint Hindu family ancestral property in the hands of Sh. Bhagwandefendant No.1, who is father of plaintiff No.1 and husband of plaintiff No.2; Sh. Bhagwan had inherited the suit land from his father Sh. Parma Nand, vide mutation No.4689 dated 08.06.1986, therefore, the plaintiffs have got a right in the suit land; defendants No.2 to 8 taking advantage of defendant No.1 being addicted to drinking procured a sale deed bearing No.3951 dated 02.08.2010 from defendant No.1; according to the plaintiffs, the sale deed is without consideration; defendant No.1 had alienated the suit land without any legal necessity; the possession of the suit land is still with the plaintiffs; the plaintiffs prayed for setting aside the impugned sale deed dated 02.08.2010 and subsequent mutation; they also craved for issuance of decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.2 to 8 from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.
3.
Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Defendant No.1 had put in appearance in the Court but subsequently absented, as such, vide order dated 11.06.2011, he was proceeded against ex parte.
4.
Defendants No.2 to 8 filed a joint written statement, claiming that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice of suit land, which according to them is not ancestral. As per
version of answering defendants, Sh. Bhagwan had sold the suit land for a sum of Rs.18,29,000/- for the purpose of extension of his business as well as clearance of his debts. The plaintiffs were consenting party to the sale deed and mutation on the basis of Jalsaa-Aam (public meeting) without any objection having been raised by the plaintiffs. According to the answering defendants, in fact the suit land was inherited by Sh. Bhagwan from his father Parma Nand, who had acquired occupancy rights in the suit land. He became owner of the suit land by way of occupancy rights, in that way, the suit land in hand of Parma Nand was his self acquired property and it cannot be termed as ancestral property. The defendants contended that they are in possession of the suit land.
5.
Plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement denying the allegations therein, whereas, reiterating the averments in the plaint.
6.
On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as well as permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in this present form? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands? OPD.
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD.
7. Relief.
7.
Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. 8.
After hearing arguments, the trial Court decided issue No.1 partly in favour of the plaintiffs, restraining the contesting defendants No.2 to 8 from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over joint khata bearing khewat No.385/372, kitte 6 measuring 41K16M situated within the revenue estate of village Kharak Kala, Tehsil & District Bhiwani as per jamabandi for the year 2006-07 without getting the same partitioned. Issues No.2 to 6 were decided as being not pressed. As a result of finding on issue No.1, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed partly with costs. This was so done, vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2014.
9.
Both the parties were not satisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and they had filed separate appeals before District Judge, Bhiwani. The appeal filed by plaintiffs Madhubala and Darshna Devi Vs. Bhagwan and others bearing Civil Appeal No.127-2014 as well as appeal filed by defendant Smt. Kunti Devi and others Vs. Madhubala and others bearing Civil Appeal No.128-2014 were disposed of, vide a single judgment and decree dt. 24.07.2018, passed by Addl. District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the Civil Appeal No.127-2014 was dismissed and Civil Appeal No.128-
2014 was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. 10.
As such, the plaintiffs have knocked at the door of this Court, by way of filing Regular Second Appeals, which concern the same subject matter having arisen out of single judgment and decree passed by learned ADJ, Bhiwani.
11.
12.
! "
#
$
# %
! &
& ' ( !)
)
*
" )
$
$
" ) !
!
#
* +
)
!
#
"
,
)-
)
!
!
#
!
) ) . !
) ! # %/01
% 0/% +3 .)
)
!
! " #$
0/2 6. 9
%
08 ,
!
#
*
)
$ !
(
0/2 )
"
)
$
" )
) !
) :3 ) & #
$
) ) 3 "
# %
!
) "
! 3 )
) !
3
!
. 4%0111;:
3
)
$ # ! )
$
!
) !
! "
3 !
!
) )
) ) !
)
, , !
'
)
!
!
*
!
'
* '
! :
2 !
# <
) #
$
!
< ! !
# 3 #
< ! # % 3 <
$ !
'
) , )
)
, & 7 $ ' !
) & 7 $ quite detailed, well reasoned, based upon proper appraisal of evidence and correct interpretation of law. There is no illegality or infirmity therein, which might have called for intervention by this Court by accepting the Regular Second Appeals. No substantial question of law arises in these appeals. The same are found to be without merit and are dismissed accordingly.
%
% %1%%
&'"()*
+,(-. = *; >
# = .
> #