Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2803 of 2002 Date of Decision: July 24, 2009 Ram Lal ...........Appellant Versus Lal Chand etc. ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that notwithstanding the entries to the contrary in the record, the suit property described in the head note is ancestral/coparcenary/Joint Hindu family properties qua the plaintiff and suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the said properties to any body. The said suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Abohar vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.2000. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 5.3.2002. Hence, the present appeal . The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:- Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 2 “ 2. Appellant filed suit by alleging that Hira Ram, the father of appellant and respondent No.1 was karta of Joint Hindu Family consisting of parties. Respondents No.2 to 4 are sons of respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 is under care and custody of respondent Nos. and latter has no interest adverse to the minor. Respondent No.5 is son of appellant whereas respondent No.6 is mother of appellant. Parties are governed by Hindu Law in matters of succession and alienation. Joint Hindu Family consisting of parties and headed by Hira Ram, as Karta, was owning 25/26 acres of agricultural lands and residential house detailed and described in the head note of plaint of suit. Suit properties mentioned in items (a) to (e) of head note of plaint of suit were purchased with the Joint Hindu Family funds and income through sale deed dated 28.1.1981, 30.1.1981, 4.3.1983 and 12.4.1985 for consideration from Manphool, Bahadur Singh and Puran Singh etc. Ever since purchase of the suit lands Joint Hindu Family had been occupying and cultivating these properties in their own rights without any objection or claim whatsoever from respondent. After death of Hira Ram, on 6.8.1992, disputes and differences arose qua inheritance for sharing the suit properties and other Joint Hindu Family properties. Respondents No. 1 to 4 in league with each other started denying nature of the suit properties. On the basis of notional partition that took place on death of Hira Ram, Hira Ram got 1/3rd share whereas appellant as well as respondent No.1 got 1/3d share each in the suit properties.Otherwise also on the basis of Will dated 12.4.1985, Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 3 suit properties devolved upon appellant and respondent No.1 in equal share. Respondents have been repeatedly asked to admit claim of appellant qua his share in the suit property,but to no effect. Rather respondents started threatening to alienate suit property and as such relief of permanent injunction also claimed for protection of possession as well as qua alienation of the suit properties. 3.Respondent No.6 Smt.Kasturi Devi filed written statement where through claiming that respondents No. 1 to 4 purchased suit properties with their own income after arranging money by respondent No.1 from his brother in law and Commission agents. Consideration amount regarding sale deeds referred above was paid by respondent No.1, Lal Chand through Hira Ram at the time of execution of the sale deed. Thus, suit properties are self acquired properties of respondent No.1 to 4 and since then they are coming in possession of the suit properties as owners and mutation has also been sanctioned on the basis of the sale deeds in their names. Suit in present form not maintainable, particularly when material facts have been concealed. Appellant is employed as Teacher and he is residing separately from his father Hira Ram since long. Appellant had been residing in a separate house and he has no concern with the ownership of the suit properties. Appellant has no locus standi or cause of action. or Suit otherwise barred by provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. as well as by rule of estoppel due to act and conduct of appellant. Besides suit being barred by law of limitation is not properly valued for Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 4 purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. Suit bad due to non- joinder of necessary parties. Earlier civil suit for declaration filed by appellant against respondents titled as Ram Lal versus Kasturi Devi etc, was decided by court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar and as such present suit being false, vexatious and frivolous merits dismissal. There is no dispute regarding ownership rights of the parties. However, it is denied that parties to the suit constituted Joint Hindu Family headed by Hira Ram. It is denied that Joint Hindu Family owned 25/26 acres of land. Rather properties in question were purchased by respondents No.1 to 4 with funds arranged by respondent NO.1 as referred above. As appellant was separated long ago by his father and brother and as such suit properties are not joint Hindu Family properties. Respondent Lal Chand purchased 4 ½ acres of land about 14 years ago by spending amount from his own pocket. Like-wise respondent No.1 purchased 3 acres of land about ten years ago by arranging money himself. Inspite of the fact that appellant was residing separately from his father and brother, Hira Ram, the father of the appellant got purchased 25 kanals 15 marlas of land about 12 years ago in the name of his grand sons namely, Phoosa Ram and Ranjit Ram in equal shares. This Ranjit Ram is son of Ram Lal appellant. Appellant has got no concern with the possession of the suit properties. Rather respondents are in possession of the suit properties in their own rights and as such suit prayed to be dismissed. After death of Hira Ram, mutation earlier was sanctioned by Assistant Collector Iind Grade, Abohar Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 5 in favour of all the natural heirs of Hira Ram, but then the will executed by Hira Ram was put forth, then mutation stood sanctioned in favour of appellant as well as respondetn No.1. Suit land was never purchased with Joint Hindu Family funds and Income and as such it is neither the Joint Hindu Family and nor coparcenary or ancestral property” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ?OPD 2. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC ?OPD 3. Whether the property in question is ancestral and coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family Property qua the plaintiff?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 7. Relief” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the entries in the revenue record were incorrect as the property in question had been purchased in the names of defendants out of the Joint Hindu Family property. Both the parties, in order to prove their case, led their respective evidence. As per Exhibit P13, copy of jamabandi for the year 1986-87, Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 6 Hira son of Pema Ram was in possession of land measuring 204 kanal 16 marla. However, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any evidence from the record which could show that the suit land was inherited by Hira Ram from his ancestors. Even in the earlier jamabandies placed on record, Hira Ram has been described in possession of the land as tenant. In these circumstances, Courts below rightly came to conclusion that the only logical conclusion that could be proved from the revenue record on the file was that Hira Ram became owner of the land by operation of law and thus, being an occupancy tenant had acquired ownership rights. He could dispose of his personal property and income accruing from the said property, in the manner, he liked. In these circumstances, Hira Ram could purchase property in the name of any of his son out of his personal income. Hira Ram had also executed a Will dated 12.4.1985 in favour of his son-appellant. On the basis of the said Will, the appellant had filed a Civil Suit No. 912 of 2001 dated 15.3.1995 and the said suit was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.1998. On the basis of the said Will, the appellant was held to be owner in possession of the half share of the land measuring 204 kanal 16 marla. The said property in dispute was purchased in the name of defendant Lal Chand, his sons Ram Sarup, Sahib Ram Phoosa Ram and Ranjit Ram son of plaintiff-Ram Lal. The said sale deeds are dated 28.1.1981, 30.1.1981, 4.3.1983 and 12.4.1985. However, the said sale deeds have been challenged by way of a suit filed in the year 1994 and, thus, after the period of limitation. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that it was time barred and moreover, the plaintiff had failed to establish Regular Second Appeal No.2803 of 2002 7 that the land in dispute had been purchased out of Joint Hindu Family property. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 24, 2009 arya