RSA No.2262 of 2008 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2262 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.11.2008 Lakhwinder Kaur and another ..Appellants. Vs. Labh Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN * * * Present: Mr.G.P.S.Bal, Advocate for the appellants. * * * Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The plaintiffs are in second appeal assailing the judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby their suit for declaration has been dismissed. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that suit property along with other property in village Kumbra was owned by Surjit Kaur wife of defendant No.1 and mother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 whereas the property situated in village Ramgarh Manda is owned by defendant No.1, father-in- law of plaintiff No.1. Surjit Kaur inherited the property of village Kumbra from her father and died intestate in December 1992 leaving behind her husband Labh Singh, her sons and daughters, who are defendants No.2 to 6. It was claimed that the plaintiffs being legal heirs of Surjit Kaur were entitled to her estate with her sons and daughters and husband in equal shares and plaintiff No.1 was married to Bhola Singh son of Surjit Kaur and Labh Singh on 3.10.1991 and out of the wedlock, a daughter was born. Said RSA No.2262 of 2008 -2 - Bhola Singh was died on 18.3.1993 and plaintiff No.1, who has been employed as a Matron in District Jail Sangrur, spent Rs.1 lac from her own saving on the construction and renovation of the suit property as the same were given to Bhola Singh in a family settlement arrived at in June 1992. Since both the properties were given to Bhola Singh, therefore, Bhola Singh is the owner in possession of the suit property. It is further alleged that in case it is decided by the Court that no family settlement has been arrived at between the parties then the plaintiffs being the widow and daughter of Bhola Singh, are entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property situated at villages Kumbra and Ramgarh Manda. It is also alleged that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property since June 1992 but the defendants by using their influence over the local police got a compromise arrived at between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Plaintiffs were made to sign this compromise by putting them into fear of being involved in false cases and were threatened by SHO, Police Station Phase 8, Mohali. In this compromise, defendants admitted 1/6th share of plaintiffs' in the entire property including the suit property. But the plaintiffs were ordered by the police officers to vacate the suit property by 7.3.2001, therefore, filed the suit. Defendants No.1 to 4 and 6 filed a joint written statement admitting that the suit property was inherited by Surjit Kaur, her father and the plaintiffs inherited 1/7th share of the suit property. It is alleged that during the life time of Bhola Singh, he was Constable in Jail Department and remained posted at Patiala and Nabha and after his marriage, he was transferred to Dera Bassi and remained posted till his death but that time, plaintiffs used to stay at village Ramgarh Manda near Morinda. The suit property remained in possession of Labh Singh defendant No.1 alone. After RSA No.2262 of 2008 -3 - the death of Bhola Singh, plaintiff No.1 along with her child, shifted to her parents village just after the day of Bhog ceremony and she was only middle pass and thereafter, did her matriculation while residing in her parents' house and got the job in place of Bhola Singh and was posted at Patiala and then she was posted at Sangrur. Neither Bhola Singh nor the plaintiffs ever resided in village Kumbra nor the properties in suit was given to Bhola Singh in June 1992 in any family settlement. It was pleaded that actually defendant No.1 wanted to sell property No.1 known as shop for Rs.2,40,000/- and he wanted to get the sale deed executed in favour of the proposal vendee by all the legal heirs and to divide the sale proceeds according to their share but the plaintiff No.1 along with her father and brother probably under the impression that the plaintiffs would get nothing by breaking the lock of the properties forcibly early in the morning on 3.3.2001 and forcibly occupied the same. On this defendant No.1 gave an application in the Police Station on 3.3.2001 and plaintiff No.1, her father and her brother were summoned and under the pressure of respectables defendant No.1 agreed to 1/6th share to the plaintiffs out of the sale proceeds and a written compromise was prepared which was handed over to the police but later on plaintiff No.1 on the instigation of her father and brothers had resiled from the compromise. Now both the houses were lying locked and father of the plaintiff No.1 along with hired supporters are just keeping watch, so that the defendants may not enter the suit property. The plaintiffs are only entitled to 1/7th share of the suit property. It is thus, prayed that the suit be dismissed. Defendant No.5 filed separate written statement and has alleged that the property at village Kumbra was not given to Bhola Singh as alleged nor any amount was spent by the plaintiffs and all the legal heirs RSA No.2262 of 2008 -4 - have got share in it. No compromise was taken place in the absence of defendants, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the suit. Defendant No.3 did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs controverting the material averments made by the defendants in the written statement. Both the Courts have given the concurrent findings of fact on the basis of evidence recorded. The case of the plaintiffs is that suit property in village Kumbra fell to the share of Bhola Singh in family settlement which is alleged to have taken place in the month of June 1992 but no evidence in this regard has been led. It has even not been disclosed as to who was present at the time of said family settlement and what was the share given to the respondents. There is no dispute that Surjit Kaur, mother- in-law was the owner of those properties as she inherited the same from his father and after her death, she has been succeeded by her husband and four sons namely respondents No.2 to 4 and Bhola Singh since deceased and predecessor-in-interest of the appellants and two daughters respondents No.5 and 6 and her husband Labh Singh respondent. Since the basic document is family settlement, which has not been proved. So far as the compromise is concerned, the plaintiffs themselves backed out from the compromise, therefore, no importance can be given. It was also found that in the agreement, there was nothing to suggest that respondents have agreed to give 1/6th share in the suit property of the plaintiffs rather it is stipulated that plaintiffs will get Rs.40,000/- out of the sale proceeds of the property i.e. shop in dispute which was sold by Labh Singh for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. From these stipulations, it was found that plaintiffs were not entitled to the extent of 1/6th share in the suit property situated in village RSA No.2262 of 2008 -5 - Kumbra. It was also found that property situated in village Ramgarh Manda is the exclusive property of respondent Labh Singh. Besides the above, the learned Court below has also found that the plaintiffs could not prove by leading cogent evidence that they are in possession of the suit property since 1992. They failed to place on record any ration card, voters' list, school record of appellant No.2 , any electricity or telephone bills in this regard. Although plaintiff Lakhwinder Kaur had stated in her statement that she had got installed the electricity meter in her house in the year 1992 but no bill was produced w.e.f. the year 1992 rather she has failed to produce any electricity bill on record despite the fact that her statement was deferred only for producing those bills. Her cross-examination was concluded on 8.4.2004 and her subsequent cross-examination was concluded on 10.5.2007 and in these three years, she failed to produce any electricity bill to prove her possession over the suit property. Rather she categorically admitted in her cross-examination that she had not paid any electricity bill till today, therefore, in these circumstances, both the Courts have found that plaintiffs are not the owners in possession of the suit property. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the present appeal nor any question of law much less substantial has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants for consideration and adjudication by this Court. Hence, the present appeal being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 5.11.2008 Judge Meenu