RSA No.1490 of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 1490 of 1997 Date of decision: May 11, 2011 Gurmit Singh and another .....Appellants Versus Lachhman Singh and Others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.M.L.Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr.Simran Sidhu,Advocate and Mr.Nitin Sarin, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for joint possession and declaration that the decrees dated 8.9.1986 and 16.10.1986 were not binding on them. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that the parties constituted a joint Hindu family. The pedigree table as shown in para 1 of the plaint is as under:- RSA No.1490 of 1997 2 Waryama alias Warayam Singh I I Subedar Jagat Singh (Defendant No.1) I I Wife Smt. Thakari (Defendant No.2) I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I Lachhman Singh Gurmit Singh Surjit Singh Balbir Singh (Defdt No.3) (Plaintiff No.1) (Defdt No.4) (Plaintiff No.2) Defendant No.1 had inherited the suit property from his father. Defendant No.1 was, thus, not competent to alienate, transfer or dispose of the suit property in favour of defendant No.3 or any one else without any legal necessity. Defendant No.3 in collusion with defendant No.1 filed suits bearing No. 293 of 1986 and 579 of 1986 against defendant no.1, alleging therein, that the land mentioned in the plaint were self- acquired property of defendant No.1. However, as per the revenue record, the suit property was recorded in the name of defendant No.1. Hence, the decrees passed in the suit filed by defendant No.3, on the basis of admission made by defendant No.1, were not binding on the plaintiffs as they were not party to the said suits. Defendant no. 1, 2 and 4 were proceeded ex-parte. Defendant no.3, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the pedigree table reflected in the plaint was not correct. The parties were not the members of the joint Hindu family. The suit land was self-acquired property of defendant No.1. The said property was exclusively owned by defendant no.1 and the decrees in favour of defendant No.3 were valid and legal. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were RSA No.1490 of 1997 3 framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the decree No. 579 of 1996 dt. 8.9.1986 passed by S.S.Hundal, SJIC, Jalandhar and decree No. 293 dated 16.10.1986 passed by Sh.Iqbal Singh Bajwa, SSJ Jalandhar in cases Lachhman Singh vs. Jagat Singh are null and void, illegal, and without jurisdiction etc.?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 4.Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued?OPD 6. Relief” The Sub Judge II Class decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 12.8.1993. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.3-Lachhman Singh preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 3.4.1997. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the First appellate Court had erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. In the earlier suit filed by defendant No.3, it was alleged that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.1. Thus, there was admission by defendant No.3 qua RSA No.1490 of 1997 4 the nature of the suit property as coparcenary property. Plaintiffs were not party to the earlier litigation between defendant No.1 and 3 and, hence, the decrees passed in favour of defendant No.3 were not binding on the plaintiffs. No family settlement had been proved on record. The decrees in question required registration and since they were not registered, the same were not valid as per law. The plea taken by defendant No.3 that defendant no.1 had purchased the property in his own name with the money sent by him was hit by the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act,1988. Certified copies of the judgments in the earlier litigation had been placed on record by the defendants and, hence, were liable to be read in evidence. Moreover, the said documents were public documents. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs. Gopay Vinayak Gosavi and others AIR 1960 Supreme Court 100 wherein it has been held as under:- “An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous.” Learned counsel has next placed reliance on Sher Singh and others vs. Gamdoor Singh AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1333 wherein it was held as under:- “We do not find any force in the contention. It was their own case in the previous suit that it is ancestral property and that Arjan Singh and his sons are members of the joint family. Once the existence of joint family was not in dispute, necessarily the property held by the family assumed the RSA No.1490 of 1997 5 character of a coparcenary property and every member of the family would be entitled by birth to a share in the coparcenary property unless any one of the coparceners pleads, by separate pleadings, and proves that some of the properties or all the properties are his self acquired properties and could not be blended in the coparcenary property.” Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Pyare Lal vs. Mehar Singh and others PLR 2011 82 wherein it was held as under:- “Consequently, if a party obtains certified copy of plaint or written statement or judgment of a court, it shall be treated as a public document and no further proof is necessary for proof of the document. The court is bound to receive it as evidence at the instance of any party producing the same.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves to be allowed. The following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:- “Whether the judgments and decrees in Civil suits No. 293 of 1986 and 579 of 1986 were binding on the plaintiffs- appellants when they were not parties to the same ? Certified copies of the pleadings and judgments/decrees of in the earlier suits filed by defendant No.3 had been placed on record before the trial Court. The plaintiffs have challenged the decrees dated 16.10.1986 and 8.9.1986 suffered by defendant No.1 in suits filed by RSA No.1490 of 1997 6 defendant no.3. The said decrees and pleadings are not in dispute as the same are relied upon by defendant no.3 and are challenged by the plaintiffs. Hence, the same though not exhibited are relevant piece of evidence. Lachhman Singh-Defendant no.3 filed a suit against defendant No.1 bearing No. 579 of 1986 on 21.8.1986. The said suit was decided on 8.9.1986 on the basis of admission made by the defendant-Jagat Singh. A perusal of the plaint in the said suit reveals that defendant No.3 had filed suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of land situated in village Lammapind bearing khewat no.209, khatauni no.299, khasra number 2634/2053 (3-7), 2629/2054(1-4), 2630/2054(2-7),20 55,(0-6), 2060 (3-2), and khewat No.212, khatauni No.303, khasra no.2633/2053 (2- 10),khewat No.212, khatauni no.304, khasra No.2035 (2-10), Khewat no.465, Khatauni No. 682, Khasra number 2926//410(1-13) 2927/1410(1-9), khewat No.298 Khatauni No. 435 Khasra No.2068 (1-8), 2069(1-14), 196 khewat No. 196, Khatauni No. 279,Khasra No.2072 (4-16), khewat No.464, Khatauni No. 681, khasra No. 2062 (5-10) 2063(5-5), Khewat No. 336, khatauni No. 476, khasra No.2074 (4-17), 2081(4-7), khewat No. 401, khatauni No. 563, khasra No. 2064 (0-14), 2071(2-00) Khewat no. 305, Khatauni No.443, Khasra No. 2066(1-10), Khewat No.157 Khatauni No. 227, Khara No.2073 (4-15), as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1980-81 vide family arrangement between the parties. Defendant No. 3 in the said suit had alleged that the suit land includes certain ancestral land and certain self-acquired land. The self-acquired land though entered in the name of defendant -Jagat Singh had been purchased out of the RSA No.1490 of 1997 7 funds contributed by the Lachhman Singh-Defendant No.3. Thus, in the said suit, it was the case of defendant no.3 himself that the suit property was partly ancestral in nature and partly self-acquired. However, it was not clarified as to which khasra numbers were ancestral land and which khasra numbers were self -acquired land. Since the suit had been filed qua ancestral land also, on the basis of family partition, the other sons of Jagat Singh, were required to be impleaded as a party. However, this was not done by defendant No.3. In these circumstances, decree dated 8.9.1986 was not binding on the plaintiffs as it had been passed at their back. Defendant No.3 also filed civil suit No. 293 of 1986 on 7.10.1986 against defendant no.1 for declaration to the effect that he was the owner in possession of land Khewat No.147, khatauni No.216, Khasra Numbers 27//2/4, 3/2 (0-4), 12/1(0-1),30//10/1(7-0), 12(70), 19/1(3-0), Khatauni No. 217 20/1(4-0), 174(0-10), 183(0-7), 11/2/2(2-2), 3/1(6-11) 4(7-11), 5(6-16), 6/1(0-8), 7/1(0-9), Khatauni 218 Khatauni 219 8/1(0-6), /27/6/2(4-8), /27/7(7-3), khewat No,147, Khatauni No. 220, Khasra Nos. 30/11/2(0-15),Khatauni No.221, Khasra Nos. 30/9/1(1-17) 9/2(2-19), ,11/3(6-0), Khatauni no. 222, khasra No. 27/8(8-0),9/1(0-4), 13/1(2-8), khewat No.148, Khatauni No.223, khasra numbers 14/23/1 (0-2),20/2/1/2, 2/2 (0-10), 3/1/(1- 15), 3/1/2(2-11), 3/2/1(0-7), 3/2/2(0-8), 8/1/1(1-7), 9/1/1(1-17), khewat No. 149, Khatauni No.225 Khasra Nos. 20/22/2/1(0.7),25/2/2 (6,8), Khewat No.157, Khatauni No.234, Khasra No.20/28 (2-2), Khewat No.234, Khasra No.20/28 (2-2), Khewat No. 180, Khatauni No.259, Khasra No.27/26(1-0), as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1984-85, H.B.No. 216, vilage Dhadha and entered in the name RSA No.1490 of 1997 8 of share of the defendant-Jagat Singh. In the said suit, defendant No.3 pleaded that he was living in England and had been sending money to his father for purchase of land. The land had been purchased by Jagat Singh out of the said money. In a family arrangement, defendant No.3 was in possession of the suit land. Defendant No.3 had filed the said suit against his father without impleading the other heirs. Had the other sons of Jagat Singh been impleaded in the said suit, they would have got a right to put up their case as to whether the suit property had been purchased out of joint Hindu Family funds or from the money sent by the plaintiffs. However, the other sons of Jagat Singh were not impleaded as party by defendant No.3-Lachhman Singh and, hence, the decree dated 16.10.1986 could not be said to be binding on the plaintiffs as they were not a party to the said litigation. The trial Court had, thus rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as they were not a party to the earlier litigation. Thus, the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be decreed. The substantial question of law stands answered accordingly. The learned First Appellate Court has erred in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are upheld. ( Sabina ) Judge May 11,2011 arya