RSA No. 2571 of 2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2571 of 2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.5.2011. Heera Nand .......Appellant Vs. Smt. Champa Devi and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sharad Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff Maya Chand had filed a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that his father Ram Nath had died on 4.11.1984 leaving behind the plaintiff has his only legal heir being his son. The plaintiff had inherited all the movable and immovable property of Ram Nath, his father. During the lifetime of Ram Nath, a portion of his landed property situated in village Mulahera had been acquired by the State of Haryana on 13.11.1981. In terms of the award No. 7 dated 28.2.1984, the compensation was awarded to late Ram Nath by Land Acquisition Collector. The amount of compensation was enhanced by this court vide R.F.A. No. 224/91 decided on 24.10.1991. During the pendency of the said case, Ram Nath RSA No. 2571 of 2001 (O&M) -2- died. The plaintiff became entitled to receive the enhanced compensation. The defendants were creating hurdles and were not allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the amount of compensation lying deposited with the court of District Judge, Gurgaon. Hence, the suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff was not the son of Ram Nath. Defendant Ranjit had received the amount of compensation qua the share of Ram Nath- deceased. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether Ram Nath died on 4th Nov. 1984 leaving behind the plaintiff as his only son ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has inherited all moveable and immovable property after death of his father? OPP 3. Whether the land mentioned in para No. 3 of the plaint was acquired by State of Haryana and amount of Rs. 192413.45 and Rs. 20863/- are deposited by the Haryana State as compensation amount? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the compensation amount? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of perpetual injunction as claimed in the suit? OPP 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the RSA No. 2571 of 2001 (O&M) -3- present form? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing present suit by his own acts, conduct etc.? OPD 9. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res- judicata? OPD 10. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court clean hands? OPD 11. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 12. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 14.9.1998, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld, in appeal filed by the plaintiff, by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 24.3.2001. Hence, the present appeal by Heera Nand, legal heir of the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was the son of Ram Nath. Although in the death certificate of plaintiff Maya Chand, he is described to be son of Ram Nath and in the will, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the present appellant, he has described himself to be the son of Ram Nath but the said documents are not sufficient to establish that the plaintiff Maya Chand was the RSA No. 2571 of 2001 (O&M) -4- son of Ram Nath. Plaintiff himself never appeared in the witness box in support of his case. Rathar, Mahi Pal appeared in the witness box as attorney of Maya Chand, whereas the present appellant was impleaded as legal heir of deceased Maya Chand- plaintiff during the trial, after the death of Maya Chand. Succession certificate was issued in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 4 in case No. 17/15.3.1985 decided on 7.3.1990, whereas the petition filed by Maya Chand-plaintiff seeking succession certificate qua estate of Ram Nath, was dismissed on 24.3.1990. The defendant Ranjit received the amount of compensation qua the share of Ram Nath in terms of the order of the court. The said order was never challenged by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 12, 2011 Gurpreet