Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Kaur vs Naresh Kumar And Others on 26 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057474
2024:PHHC:057474
RSA-590-2019 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
104 RSA-590-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.04.2024.
Satnam Kaur ...Appellant.
Versus
Naresh Kumar and others ....Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
----
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
Sukhvinder Kaur, J.
The instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by appellant/
plaintiff against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below
vide which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case as per plaint are that the father of the
plaintiff Satnam Kaur namely Teja Singh alongiwth his two brothers Kartar
Singh and Kirpal Singh sold their land situated in Village Kalheri, District
Karnal measuring 28 Kanal 11 Marlas comprising in Rect. No.6 as detailed
in para No.1 of the plaint on 07.07.1966 so Sain Ditta Mal and Prabh Dyal
i.e. predecessor in interest of defendants, as per jamabandi for the year
1962-63. It was alleged that the said land was sold jointly by Teja Singh
father of the plaintiff alongwith his two brothers Kartar Singh and Kirpal
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057474
2024:PHHC:057474
RSA-590-2019 (O&M) - 2-
Singh as they were co-sharers in the above said land. The plaintiff filed a
civil suit for possession against the above said persons by depositing
amount of 1/5th of the sale consideration in the Court and contested the suit
by pleading that the plaintiff is daughter of Teja Singh and niece of Kartar
Singh and Kirpal Singh (defendants No.3 to 5 in that suit) and they have not
informed the plaintiff before sale of the suit property and before execution
of the sale deed dated 07.07.1966. The said suit for possession was decreed
by learned SJIC, Panipat on 20.11.1968 to the effect that the plaintiff is
entitled only qua share of her father subject to payment of Rs.2289.17 to be
deposited by the plaintiff on or before 24.12.1968. It has been alleged that
the amount of Rs.1280/- was deposited by the plaintiff at the time of filing
of the suit and remaining amount was to be deposited within the stipulated
period. It has been alleged that the said amount was deposited by the
plaintiff in time and after that the name of the plaintiff was incorporated by
the revenue officials inadvertently, in column No.5 of the jamabandi, though
possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff as per
judgment and decree dated 20.11.1968 and since then the plaintiff is owner
in possession over the Khasra No.25/1(4/0), 24(2/13), 16(2/17) total land
measuring 9 Kanal 10 Marlas in Khewat No.68 shown in jamabandi for the
year 2006-07. It has been alleged that in July, 2011, the plaintiff came to
know that her name had not been mentioned in the column of ownership,
regarding the land detailed in para No.5 of the plaint and then the plaintiff
requested defendant No.11 to correct the revenue record and to incorporate
her name in the jamabandi. But the defendant continued to prolong the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057474
2024:PHHC:057474
RSA-590-2019 (O&M) - 3-
mater on one pretext or the other and now defendants No.1 to 10 are
threatening the plaintiff to dispossess her from the suit property. Hence, the
instant suit was filed.
3. Notice to the said suit was given to the defendants. Defendant
No.11 came present and filed written statement taking preliminary
objections of maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, non service of
notice under Section 80 CPC before filing of the present suit and suit being
time barred. It was alleged that decree of Civil Court can be executed within
12 years from the date of judgment and decree and the decree dated
20.11.1968 was a conditional decree, subject to depositing the balance sale
consideration on or before 24.12.1968. But the plaintiff has failed to
produce any document with respect to depositing of remaining payment of
sale consideration and the plaintiff has never got executed the said judgment
and decree through a competent Court of law within the stipulated period,
so she cannot claim the ownership on the basis of said decree. The
remaining defendants i.e. defendants No.1 to 10 did not contest the suit of
the plaintiff.
4. The suit of plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court, vide
judgment and decree dated 11.12.2014. The appeal preferred by the
appellant/ plaintiff before the First Appellate Court was also dismissed, vide
judgment and decree dated 25.07.2018. Hence, the present Regular Second
Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ plaintiff, before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff has contended that
the findings recorded by both the Courts below are erroneous and not
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057474
2024:PHHC:057474
RSA-590-2019 (O&M) - 4-
sustainable in the eyes of law. It has been proved by the appellant by placing
on record copy of judgment and decree dated 20.11.1968 Ex.P4 and P5
respectively, that suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by SJIC, Panipat and
she was held entitled to share of her father subject to payment of
Rs.2289.17. It has been further proved by the appellant that the amount of
Rs.1280/- was deposited by her at the time of filing of the suit and the
remaining amount was deposited within the stipulated period as per
judgment and decree dated 20.11.1968. The possession qua the share of her
father i.e. property in dispute was handed over to her but the revenue
authorities illegally and wrongly reflected the name of the plaintiff in the
column of possession, in collusion with the present defendants/ respondents.
As the plaintiff came to know about the wrong entries in the year 2011, so
the present suit was filed well within the limitation in the year 2011.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone
through the record thoroughly.
7. As per the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1968 Ex.P4 and
P5, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of preferential rights of
Satnam Kaur being daughter of Teja Singh and niece of Kartar Singh and
Kirpal Singh was partly decreed only qua 1/3rd share of Teja Singh i.e.
father of the plaintiff in that property, subject to depositing the payment of
Rs.2289.17 as preemption money to the defendant and the plaintiff was
directed to deposit the said money on or before 24.12.1968, failing which it
was stated that the suit of the plaintiff would be deemed to be dismissed.
The plaintiff has admitted in her cross-examination that amount of
Rs.1280/- was deposited by her at the time of filing of the suit in the year
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057474
2024:PHHC:057474
RSA-590-2019 (O&M) - 5-
2012. Thus obviously, she did not comply with the judgment and decree
dated 20.11.1968 as per which the preemption money was to be deposited
upto 24.12.1968. As this specific condition was not complied with, so the
name of the plaintiff/appellant was not incorporated in the revenue record.
8. It has been rightly observed by the Courts below that merely
having decree in her favour does not mean that the plaintiff/ appellant
became owner of the suit property unless conditions specific in the decree
were fulfilled. The plaintiff was to deposit preemption money within the
stipulated period as per judgment and decree dated 20.11.1968 and the suit,
if any, was to be filed within a period of limitation. So delay in filing the
appeal after about 43 years of the decree has not been explained by the
plaintiff.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the present Regular Second
Appeal fails and is dismissed as it does not raise any question of law much
less substantial question of law.
10. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
26.04.2024.
komal
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
5 of 5
