Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aslo Deen And Ors vs Suleman Dna Ors on 9 May, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
RSA No.2369 of 2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
112 RSA No.2369 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 09.05.2024
Aslo Deen and Others ....Appellants
VERSUS
Suleman and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgments
and decrees dated 05.07.2014 and 13.12.2018 passed by the Trial Court and
First Appellate Court respectively.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that Sukra alias
Sukar Deen i.e. father of the plaintiff-appellants and the defendant-
respondents was owner in possession of the suit land and he died 08 months
prior to filing of the suit leaving behind the parties to the suit as his legal
heirs. It was averred in the plaint that the defendant-respondents in
connivance with each other played fraud with the plaintiff-appellants and
filed a suit alleging a family settlement. A consent decree was passed in
Civil Suit No.241 dated 11.08.2006. The said decree was challenged in the
present suit. It was further averred in the plaint that the defendant-
respondents had manipulated and signed/thumb marked the plaint in the
earlier suit themselves with the help of their accomplice. On notice, the suit
integrity of this order/judgment
was contested by the defendant-respondents. On the basis of the pleadings of
the parties the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration to
the effect that they are owners in equal shares of land
measuring 25 Kanal 5 Marla being ½ share out of total
land measuring 50 Kanal 11 Marla ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are in joint possession
alongwith the defendants in the suit land ? OPP
3. Whether the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2006
in case No.241/11.08.2006 and consequent mutation
entries are wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding
on the rights of plaintiffs ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
5. Whether the present suit is legally not maintainable
in the present form ? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file
and maintain the present suit ? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file
and maintain the present suit ? OPD
8. Relief.
3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The appeal of the plaintiff-
appellants was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the
present regular second appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that
it has come on the record that the thumb impressions on the consent decree
integrity of this order/judgment
were not of the plaintiff-appellants. He, however, has fairly conceded that a
statement was made by the counsel for the plaintiff-appellants before the
First Appellate Court stating that they were not assailing the Civil Court
decree dated 18.12.2006 on the ground of apportionment of the property to
the legal heirs and the nature thereof. He, however, states that the decree was
a result of a fraud.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case a consent decree was passed on 18.12.2006
by which the father apportioned the property amongst his children as under :
Sr. Name Share
No.
1. Aslo Deen (Plaintiff-appellant No.1) 8 Kanals 10 Marlas
2. Roshan (Plaintiff-appellant No.2) 7 Kanals 14 Marlas
3. Gulam Deen (Plaintiff-appellant No.3) 8 Kanals 0 Marla
4. Suleman (Defendant-respondent No.1) 10 Kanals 0 Marla
5. Wali Deen (Defendant-respondent No.2) 8 Kanals 03 Marla
6. Lal Deen (Defendant-respondent No.3) 7 Kanals 14 Marlas
7. A statement was made by the counsel for the plaintiff-
appellants before the First Appellate Court fairly conceding that they did not
assail the Civil Court decree dated 18.12.2006 on the ground of
apportionment of the property to the legal heirs and the nature thereof. In
view of the statement made by the counsel for the plaintiff-appellants before
the First Appellate Court, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the
plaintiff-appellants before this Court, there does not appear to be any ground
to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. The
integrity of this order/judgment
property has been divided equally amongst the plaintiff-appellants and the
defendant-respondents. It is time to give a quietus to the present litigation as
the parties have all got a fair share.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises
in the present case. The appeal, being devoid of any merits, is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
09.05.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
