95 t RSA N03765 of2008 1 ilnthe HighCourt of Punjaband Haryanaat Chandigarh RSA No765 of 2008 DateofdecisionlMarch 072011 Ram Bhagatand others Appellants 0 0 I C5 Versus I Z Ghanshaymand Others espondents 1 I t CORAM HONBLE MRS JUSTICE SABINA Z PresentlMrAKGoel Advocate C for the appellants 7 Z MrBhardwajAdvocate for respondentNol to 6 M Ramender Chauhan Advocate for respondentNo 7 1k5k SABINA J Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunctionallegingthat earlier Kanha Ram alias KaIu Ram was owner of 113rdshare of the Iand measuring198 kanals 8 marlas The IJ pedigree table as depictedin para 30f the judgmentof the first KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.19 17: 06 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 96 4 1 RSA No3765 of2008 2 1 appellate Coutt is as under KanhaRanl KaluRam TotaRam NandRam RoopRanl UmaDutt died issueless Budh Ram adopted son Teka Jainarain Died issue Iess Richhpal Budh Ram JaiLal Banwari plaintifT 110 1 Ovent in adoption plaintill11021 toNand Raml 1 Ghan BadalNorangManohar LekhRamTara e shyam Lal Chand defendants No to 6 Nathia widOW Ganga Ishwar Ram Rohtash 0 dcfcndant Dhw Niwas 0 No101 defendantnos 3to 61 I C5 Ratn BhagatRakeshSatyavir Bal Kishan Bhagwan Krishana I defendantno 7 to 1Ol 6defcndants no 891 Z Before consolidation Nathu and Nannu had 113rdshare in the suit 2 tr propertyand Kanhu alias Kalu had 113rdshare in the suit propeny I Sheo Nand Adu and Tokha had 113rdshare in the suit property Nanu died unmarried and issueiess and his share was inheritedby Z Mohabbat Mohabbat giftedhis share out of the suit Iand to Richhpal m in favour of plaintiffsNo7 to 10 Sheo Nand Adu and Tokha died 7 Z issueless Their share came to Nand Ram Budh Ram was adopted tl by Nand Ram and after the death of Nand Ram Budh Ram became owner in possession of his share After the death of Budh Ram defendants No 1 to 6 became owners of his share Uma Dutt son of Kanha Ram had died issueless and his propertywas inheritedby his brother Tota RamNand Ram and RoopRam in equalshares Tota Ram had two sons namely Teka and Jainarain Teka died unmarried and issueless and his share out of the suit propertywas inherited by Jai Narain After the death of Jai Narain his property 1 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.19 17: 06 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 97 1 RSA N03765 of2008 3 1 was inherited by his son In this way plaintiHshad become owners in possessionof the suit Iand to the extent as mentionedbelow 1 Plaintiff nol SatyaNarain 119 share Plaintiff n02 Banwari 1127share 3 Plaintiff nos 3 to 6 1127 share whequalshares Plaintiff nos7 to 10 10127share wh equalshares 0 C Defendant nosl to 6 419 share I Nand Ram got mutated the entire share of Kanha in his favour and C5 I consequentlythe same was transferred inthe name ofhis adopted Z son Budh Ram Defendants successors in interest of Budh Ram claimed themselves to be owners of 213rdshare althoughtheywere C not owners to the extent of 213 shareence the suit was filed by I the plaintiffs Z Defendants No 1 to 6 in their writtenstatement averred that m Teka Singhson of Tota Ram had not died issueless rather he was 7 Z survived by his five daughtersIt was averred that Dholi Iand was beinggivenby the owners to a person who performed the duties of Pandatai Later on the said person became owner of the propeity Pandatai of Nanu and Nathu was inherited by Mohabbat and Pandatai of Kanhu was adoptedby Nand Rar Tokha Ram and Adu had predeceased Sheo Nand and that IS why Pandatai right devolved on Sheo Nanc Sheo Nand became exclusive owner of his share and executed the giftdeed in favour of Budh Ram The said propertydevolved on the answeringdefendants The defendants were in possessionof the suit Iand KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.19 17: 06 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 98 1 RSA N03765 of2008 4 Defendant No 7 was proceeded exeparte Defendants No 8 to 10 in their written statement the claim of the plaintiffs On the pleadingsof the parties followingissues were framedbythe trial Couit 1 Nhether the plaintiffs are entitled to get their shares as alleged70PP Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present 0 U form20PD I 3NVhetherthe suit of the plaintiffsis time barred20PD t5 I 4Nhether the plaintiffshave no Iocus standi to file the Z presentsuit70PD 5Nhether the plaintiffshave no cause of action to file the presentsuit70PD I C0 6Vhether the plaintiffs are estoppedfrom filingthe present Z suit bytheir own act and conduct20PD oo 7Relief me Z The trial Court vide judgmentand decree dismissed the suit of the Qe plaintiffsvide judgment and decree dated 62003 Aggrievedby the same plaintiffsNo 7 to 10 preferredan appealand the same was dismissed by the District Judge Bhiwani vide judgmentand decree dated 21 112007 Hence the present appeal by the plaintiffsNo 7 to 10 After hearingthe Iearnedcounsel for the parties am of the opinionthat the instant appealdeserves dismissal Both the Courts below after the evidence Ied IJ bythe partieson record held that the plaintiffshave failed to prove 8 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.19 17: 06 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 99 1 theircase me that has 5 any failed of Iaw anses in thiscase which No anses P Q 1 March 0 07 2011 IS 1 C3 Judge arya 0 er Z r2 Q r 0Z 4 Ci0 4 4a Z 0 1 Iiee 67 1 1CYl l 1 41 0 4 Pe8 4 11 I 4 KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.19 17: 06 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document