Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh vs Jarnail Singh on 19 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-197-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : 05.11.2024
Pronounced on : 19.11.2024
Paramjit Singh ....Appellant
VERSUS
Jarnail Singh & Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant against the judgements and decrees dated 15.11.2016 and
27.09.2018 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
dismissing his suit for declaration with consequential relief of joint
possession.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant averring that the
suit land is ancestral and coparcenary property in the hands of Deepo @
Dalip Singh as he had inherited the same from his forefathers. The said
Deepo @ Dalip Singh had three sons - Balwant Singh, Swaran Singh and
Kirpal Singh. Balwant Singh had died leaving behind the plaintiff-appellant,
defendant no.5 and Jatinder Singh being his sons and his estate was inherited
by them. Jatinder Singh had also died and his estate had devolved upon
defendant Nos.6 and 7. Balwant Singh had 1/3rd share in the suit land and
same was inherited by the plaintiff-appellant and defendant no.5 and Jatinder
Singh in equal shares. Swaran Singh had also died and his share had
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150266
devolved upon defendant Nos.1 to 3 in equal shares being his sons. Plaintiff-
appellant, defendant Nos.6 and 7, Jatinder Singh and defendant No.4 are also
co-sharers in the suit land by birth and Deepo @ Dalip Singh had no right to
sell the same without legal necessity. However, Deepo had executed an
alleged sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 which is illegal, invalid,
without consideration and without any legal necessity and without the
consent of the plaintiff-appellant, defendant Nos.6 and 7 and father of the
plaintiff-appellant and the said sale deed is not binding upon the rights of the
plaintiff-appellant. Hence, the present suit. In their written statement the
defendant-respondents raised preliminary objections regarding
maintainability, limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, etc. On merits it
was denied that Deepo @ Dalip Singh was not competent to execute the sale
deed or that the sale deed in their favour was illegal. It was stated that
Kulwinder Singh, the real brother of the plaintiff-appellant, was one of the
attesting witness of the sale deed and that the suit was barred as the sale deed
in question had already been upheld as a valid document in the previous suit
titled as 'Kirpal Singh Vs Deepo @ Dalip Singh and Others' decided on
30.04.1999 wherein the relief of declaring the suit land as ancestral property
had been claimed. The appeal against the decision dated 30.04.1999 had also
been dismissed. It was also denied that Deepo @ Dalip Singh had no right to
sell the suit land without legal necessity and that it had been held by the
Civil Court that the suit land was the self acquired property of Dalip Singh
and he was competent to sell the same in favour of defendant-respondent
Nos. 1 to 3. Replication was filed wherein the contents of the written
statement were denied and those of the plaint were reiterated.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150266
3. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as
prayed for ? OPP
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential
relief of joint possession as prayed for ? OPP
iii. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly time
barred ? OPD
iv. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-
joinder of the necessary parties ? OPD
v. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in
the present form ? OPD
vi. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and
conduct to file the present suit ? OPD
vii. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly
valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ?
OPD
viii. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file
the present suit ? OPD
ix. Relief
4. Vide judgement and decree dated 15.11.2016 the Trial Court
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. The appeal of the plaintiff-
appellant was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgement
and decree dated 27.09.2018. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that
both the Courts have erred in dismissing his suit. It is urged that the suit land
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150266
was joint Hindu family coparcenary property and Deepo @ Dalip Singh had
no right to sell the same without any legal necessity.
6. Heard counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.
7. In the present case the plaintiff-appellant has been unable to
prove that the suit land was joint Hindu family coparcenary property. Apart
from the oral testimonies, the plaintiff-appellant could not establish from any
documentary evidence that the suit land was coparcenary property. It was
incumbent upon the plaintiff-appellant to prove that the suit land was
inherited by Deepo @ Dalip Singh being the fourth generation in
consequence of unbroken line of succession but the said link is missing in
the present case. The revenue record has not corroborated the version of the
plaintiff-appellant. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is unable to
point to any cogent and reliable evidence on the record to show that the suit
land was coparcenary property. In the absence of such reliable evidence, the
findings recorded by both the Courts cannot be faulted. Further, the
impugned sale deed has been upheld in an earlier suit vide judgment and
decree. No other point was argued.
8. In view of the above, no mistake or error of law or facts can be
found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts. No
question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the
present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
19.11.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
jk JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
