Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Narain Singh Th. Lrs vs Smt. Dhan Kaur And Another on 13 May, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
136 RSA No.167 of 1989 (O&M)
Reserved on : 08.05.2024
Date of Decision : 13.05.2024
Narain Singh (deceased) through LRs ....Appellants
VERSUS
Smt. Dhan Kaur (deceased) through LRs and Another ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. J.S. Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Mukesh Rao, Advocate and
Mr. Shubham Aneja, Advocate for the respondents.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant No.1 -
Narain Singh - challenging the judgments and decrees dated 31.07.1986 and
03.11.1988 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
respectively.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present case that the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 - Dhan Kaur - filed a suit seeking a declaration that lease
deed dated 19.09.1980 executed in favour of the defendant No.1-appellant
was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 and for seeking possession of land measuring 84 Kanals 16
Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Kharkhari Bhiwan fully
described in the plaint and total land measuring 57 Kanals situated in the
revenue estate of village Bharawas, Tehsil Rewari, District Mohindergarh.
The case set up by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was that she was owner in
integrity of this order/judgment
possession of land measuring 84 Kanals 16 Marlas situated in the revenue
estate of village Kharkhari and land measuring 57 Kanals situated in the
revenue estate of village Bharawas vide Jamabandi for the year 1978-79. It
was further the pleaded case of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 that she was an
old Pardanashin lady and resided at Jaipur with her son Koshal Singh and
that Narain Singh (defendant No.1-appellant) was also her son. Defendant
No.2 is the son of Narain Singh. It was further the case set up that the
plaintiff-respondent No.1 executed a general power of attorney in favour of
defendant No.1-appellant for looking after the land and it was not the
intention that the defendant No.1-appellant should dispose off the land.
However, to deprive her of her right in the land he got his name entered in
the revenue record as in possession and executed a lease deed for 99 years
on 19.09.1980 in favour of his son Hamir Singh i.e. defendant-respondent
No. 2 herein at the rate of ₹ 350/- per annum. The lease deed itself was
challenged as being null and void. The suit was contested by the defendant
No.1-appellant on the ground of locus standi and the suit being bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties. It was further averred in the written statement
that Koshal Singh, general power of attorney holder of the plaintiff-
respondent No.1, had filed the suit for ulterior motives. It was further the
case set up that plaintiff-respondent No.1 was not the owner of the land and
that the land had been inherited by defendant No.1-appellant and Koshal
Singh from their father in the year 1942 prior to the passing of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 and that the land in dispute had been orally gifted by
Koshal Singh and defendant No.1-appellant to the plaintiff-respondent No.1
to save their land from surplus pool. It was further the pleaded case that
possession was never delivered and that there was no acceptance of the oral
integrity of this order/judgment
gift. Replication was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the
following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the land in
dispute as alleged ? OPP
2. Whether the land in dispute was given to the
plaintiff by way of oral and fictitious gift by defendant
No.1 and Koshal Singh as alleged, if so to what effect ?
OPD
3. Whether 'Patanama' dated 19.09.1980 is null and
void on the grounds alleged ? OPD
4. Whether the defendant No.1 is in possession of the
land in dispute as licencee under plaintiff ? OPP
5. If issue No.4 proved whether the licence has been
validly terminated ? OPP
6. Whether the suit is within time ? OPD
7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for
purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
8. Whether the suit is collusive between the plaintiff
and Koshal Singh, if so to what effect ? OPD
9. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form ? OPD
10. Whether the parties were governed by custom of
agriculture in the matter of succession and inheritance, if
so what that custom ? OPD
integrity of this order/judgment
11. Whether the defendants are estopped by their act
and conduct from challenging the ownership of the
plaintiff over the land in dispute as alleged ? OPP
12. Relief.
3. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.1986
decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by
defendant No.1-appellant which appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate
Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.1988. Hence, the present
regular second appeal by the defendant No.1-appellant.
4. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the defendant
No.1-appellant is that the land was never owned by the plaintiff-respondent
No.1 and rather the same was gifted by the defendant No.1-appellant and
Koshal Singh to their mother vide an oral gift in order to save the land from
surplus pooling. It is further the contention that the oral gift was never
accepted and hence she never became owner of the suit land.
5. Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1
would contend that after the oral gift, mutation dated 19.02.1952 (Ex.PQ and
Ex.PR) were entered in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 on the basis
of the oral gift. Once the mutation was entered, that itself would show that
the gift stood accepted by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. Thereafter, the
revenue record clearly reflects the plaintiff-respondent No.1 as owner in
possession of the suit land.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the present case both the Courts have concurrently held that
the oral gift had been made by the sons of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in
her favour which stood accepted and the mutation was also entered qua the
integrity of this order/judgment
same on 19.02.1952 (Ex.PQ and Ex.PR). The gift was not only accepted by
the plaintiff-respondent No.1 but was also recognized as such by the
defendant No.1-appellant herein inasmuch as on the basis of the attorney
given to him by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for looking after the land he
leased the same out for a period of 99 years on 19.09.1980 in favour of his
own son i.e. defendant-respondent No.2. Both the parties clearly understood
that the property had been gifted by way of an oral gift which was duly
accepted by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and was subsequently acted upon
by both the parties. That being so, no fault can be found with the judgments
and decrees passed by both the Courts. No other point was argued.
8. In view of the above, no question of law muchless substantial
question of law arises for determination in the present case. The appeal,
being devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications,
if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
13.05.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES.NO
integrity of this order/judgment
