RSA No. 258 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 258 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.4.2011. Smt. Girrajo Kaur and others .......Appellants Vs. Govt. College Hodal, Distt. Faridabad ......Respondents and others CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.M.Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration, injunction and in the alternative for possession. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that they were proprietors of Andua Patti Hodal. Andua Patti Hodal was recorded owner of the agricultural land measuring 518 Kanals 5 Marlas. The said land was being used for grazing purposes by the animals and it was not transferrable. However, two persons namely Gobind Ram and Sri Ram got a civil court decree dated 13.11.1972 declaring themselves as competent to gift away the suit land. On the basis of the said decree, a gift deed was executed in favour of Brij Mandal College Society Hodal (hereinafter referred as Society). The gift deed was executed on 11.12.1975 and mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the said gift deed on 6.9.1976 in favour of the society. The RSA No. 258 of 2010 (O&M) -2- government took over the society in November 1980. The donors had fraudulently obtained the decree dated 13.11.1972 and had illegally transferred the suit land in favour of the society. No notice was issued to the plaintiff or other proprietors of Andua Patti Hodal. The suit land continued to be in possession of the proprietors of the Patti. Defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte as he had failed to appear despite service. Defendant No.2, in his written statement, averred that the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1972 were legal and valid. The donors had executed a valid gift deed in favour of the defendant society. The construction of the girls college, undertaken by the society, was almost complete. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are Biswedar in village Andhwa Patti, Hodal? OPP 2. Whether the aforesaid Andhwa Patti, Hodal is owner in possession of the suit land and thus, in fact, the said suit land is owned by proprietors of the said patti including the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the impugned decree dated 13.11.1972, gift deed dated 11.12.1975 and mutation No. 1295 dated 6.9.1976 regarding the suit land are null, illegal, void, invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs and other proprietary body or Andhwa patti on the grounds detailed in para no. 4 of the plaint? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and RSA No. 258 of 2010 (O&M) -3- cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and have suppressed material facts? OPD 9. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD 10. Whether the suit is false and frivolous and so, defendant no.2 is entitled to special costs? OPD 11. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 19.9.2007, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 4.8.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the society was running the college in the name and style of Brij Mandal College. The said college was taken over by the state in the year 1980. The society was managing another college in the name of Maharani Kishori Memorial Kanya Mahavidayalya. The prospectus of the said college was proved on the record. As per the certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Haryana, the society was still in existence. The courts RSA No. 258 of 2010 (O&M) -4- below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1972 had been passed in a representative suit and was binding on the plaintiffs. The civil suit No. 511 of 28.10.1972 had been filed in a representative capacity. The plaintiffs failed to establish that no notice had been issued to the proprietors of Andua Patti before passing of the decree dated 13.11.1972. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly held that the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1972 was binding on the plaintiffs and other proprietors of Andua Patti . The judgment and decree dated 13.11.1972 were set aside vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.1980 on the basis of compromise but later on, the said judgment and decree were set aside in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 6.5.1981 as notice had not been issued to all the persons who were represented in the suit and consequently, the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1980 were set aside. The suit land was gifted to the society for a noble cause, i.e., for construction of a college. Although the society has been taken over by the government but the college is in existence at the spot. The college is for the benefit of all the proprietors. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 26, 2011 Gurpreet