25.02.2025 Baby and another v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
RSA-4767-2019 (O&M) Page 1 of 9 IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 RSA-4767-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.02.2025 Baby and another ...Appellant(s) Kamla and others ...Respondent(s) Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gagandeep Sanwal, Advocate for the appellants. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-13561-C-2019 Prayer in this applica*on +led under Sec*on 151 CPC is for condona*on of delay of 23 days in re+ling the accompanying appeal. Heard. For the reasons men*oned in the applica*on, the same is allowed and delay of 23 days in re+ling the accompanying appeal is condoned. CM-13562-C-2019 Prayer in this applica*on +led under Sec*on 5 of the Limita*on Act read with Sec*on 151 CPC is for condona*on of delay of 45 days in +ling the accompanying appeal. Heard. DIVYANSHI 2025.02.28 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4767-2019 (O&M) Page 2 of 9 For the reasons men*oned in the applica*on, the same is allowed and delay of 45 days in +ling the accompanying appeal is condoned. CM-13563-C-2019 By way of the present applica*on, the applicants/appellants have sought to place on record order dated 15.09.2015 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi. No reason whatsoever has been cited in the said applica*on as to why the said order was not produced by the applicants/appellants before the Courts below despite the fact that the plain*: No.1/appellant
Legal Reasoning
No.1 is the complainant in FIR No. 651 of 1995. As such, no ground is made out to entertain this applica*on at this stage. The same is accordingly dismissed. RSA-4767-2019 (O&M) The plain*:s are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of the appellants for declara*on to the e:ect that the Rapat dated 19.10.2012 is illegal and void, et cetera; with consequen*al relief of injunc*on with addi*onal prayer for grant of permanent injunc*on for restraining the defendants from selling and aliena*ng or crea*ng any sort of charge, encumbrance on the suit land as described in the plaint, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. DIVYANSHI 2025.02.28 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4767-2019 (O&M) Page 3 of 9 2. The par*es shall hereina@er be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants are the ‘plain*:s’; and the respondents are the ‘defendants’. 3. The brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that the plain*: No.1 is the widow and plain*: No.2 is the daughter of late Rambir
Legal Reasoning
son of Smt. Ram Kaur. Rambir expired on 19.05.1999. He was working as a Teacher. A@er his death, plain*: No. 1 being his widow, has been appointed as Peon on compensatory ground; and the plain*:s had also inherited the estate of Rambir at Kangenheri, New Delhi. It was the conten*on of the plain*:s that a@er the death of Smt. Ram Kaur, the defendants (who are the brothers and sisters of the deceased Rambir), and Rambir had inherited suit land measuring 6 bighas 18 biswas situated in village Wazirabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon vide muta*on No. 7071. As Rambir had died intestate leaving the plain*:s as only legal heirs and representa*ves, the plain*:s claimed to have succeeded to his estate in equal share; and therefore, had become co-owners in joint possession of the suit land and all other proper*es le@ behind by Rambir. It was alleged in the plaint that defendants manipulated rapat bearing No. 588 dated 19.10.2012 in their favour by incorrectly sta*ng that Rambir had died issueless. The plain*:s had no knowledge of the said rapat and only came to know of the same in the second week of March 2013, when the defendants started claiming *tle over the suit land on the basis of the said rapat. As such, suit for declara*on was sought that the alleged rapat dated 19.10.2012 is illegal, null and void. DIVYANSHI 2025.02.28 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4767-2019 (O&M) Page 4 of 9 4. Upon no*ce, defendants No. 1 to 4 appeared and +led wriIen statement contes*ng the suit by inter alia submiJng that although the deceased Rambir was the son of Smt. Ram Kaur, however plain*:s were neither the legal heirs nor the legal representa*ves of the deceased Rambir; that plain*: No. 1 was never appointed as Peon in lieu of services of Rambir; muta*on No. 7071 of inheritance of Rambir regarding land in Kanganheri has already been cancelled; the plain*:s had no right, *tle or interest in the suit land; and that the Rapat Roznamcha No. 588 dated 19.10.2012 is legal and valid; and that the said rapat was never got incorporated by the defendants. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 5. Defendant No. 5 also appeared and +led separate wriIen statement admiJng the claim of the plain*:s. No replica*on was +led by the plain*:s. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the par*es, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plain(cid:14)(cid:15)s are en(cid:14)tled for declara(cid:14)on with consequen(cid:14)al relief of permanent injunc(cid:14)on as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plain(cid:14)(cid:15)s have not come with clean hands before the court? OPD 3. Whether the plain(cid:14)(cid:15)s have no cause of ac(cid:14)on to #le the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plain(cid:14)(cid:15)s are estopped from #ling the present suit by their own act, conduct, admission, commission, omissions acquescence and latches etc.?OPD 5. Whether the suit of plain(cid:14)(cid:15)s is not maintainable in the present form? OPD DIVYANSHI 2025.02.28 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4767-2019 (O&M) Page 5 of 9 6. Whether the plain(cid:14)(cid:15) has no locus standi to #le the present form?OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plain(cid:14)(cid:15) is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary par(cid:14)es?OPD 8. Relief. 7. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the par*es, the ld. trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the defendants and against the plain*:s; issues No. 2 to 7 against the defendants and in favour of the plain*:s as the defendants neither adduced any evidence nor pressed the said issues during arguments; and accordingly suit of the plain*:s was dismissed with costs vide judgment and decree dated 14.07.2015 passed by learned trial Court. The appeal +led by the plain*:s was also dismissed by the learned Addi*onal District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 thereby aLrming the +ndings of the learned trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal. 8. Ld. counsel for the appellants/plain*:s assails the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below by submiJng that the plain*: No.1 had +led an FIR No. 651 of 1995 under Sec*ons 498A and 406 IPC at Police Sta*on S.P. Badli against the six accused persons i.e.: (i. Gulab Singh; ii. Rambir son of Gulab Singh; iii. Sewa Ram son of Gulab Singh/defendant No.3; iv. Ramjit Singh son of Gulab Singh/defendant No.4; v. Ram Khilari son of Gulab Singh/defendant No.5; and vi. Gom* Devi wife of Ram Khilari, in which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Delhi had passed order dated 15.09.2015 (Annexure A-1) *tled as ‘State vs. Gulab Singh’ thereby acquiJng the accused for o:ences under Sec*on 498A and DIVYANSHI 2025.02.28 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4767-2019 (O&M) Page 6 of 9 34 IPC; while also holding that no o:ence under Sec*on 406 IPC was made out against the accused Rambir who had expired during the trial and the proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 21.12.1999. Learned counsel contends that from the above said FIR and order dated 15.09.2015, it is clear that plain*: No.1 was married to Rambir; and plain*:s were therefore en*tled to inherit the state of deceased Rambir. It is further contended that learned Courts below are in error in dismissing the suit of the plain*:s as the plain*:s had led voluminous, cogent and documentary evidence in the form of Ex.P2 to Ex.P11 to prove her claim over the suit land. However, the same has been misread, misconstrued and/or ignored by the ld. Courts below. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed. 9. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants/plain*:s. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/plain*:s and perused the case +le in great detail. 11. It is the +rst conten*on of learned counsel for the plain*:s that even though the accused persons were acquiIed in the FIR No. 651 of 1995 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi vide order dated 15.09.2015 (Annexure A-1), however the same proves the marriage of plain*: No.1 with deceased Rambir. I +nd no merit in the said conten*on. AdmiIedly, Annexure A-1 was never produced by the appellants before either of the learned Courts below. The same is now DIVYANSHI 2025.02.28 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4767-2019 (O&M) Page 7 of 9 sought to be placed on record before this Court by way of an applica*on under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Sec*on 151 CPC (CM-13563-C-2019). 12. It has been stated by learned counsel for the plain*:s before this Court that the said order dated 15.09.2015 could not be produced before the Courts below as the same was passed a@er passing of the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. The said argument of learned counsel for the appellants is on the face of it false as the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is 14.07.2015; whereas judgment and decree of the learned +rst appellate Court is 15.11.2018; whereas Annexure A-1 is dated 15.9.2015. There is no reason given as to why Annexure A-1 was not produced by the appellants at least before the learned +rst appellate Court. As such, the same cannot be entertained at this stage. 13. Even otherwise, perusal of Annexure A-1 shows that there is no +nding recorded therein that the plain*: No.1 was married to the deceased Rambir on 26.06.1988 as alleged. Further plain*:s have failed to prove with cogent evidence that plain*: No.1 is the widow and plain*: No.2 is the daughter of the deceased Rambir. The learned +rst Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 aLrmed the +ndings of the learned trial Court; while also holding that rela*on of the plain*:s was not proven on record; that the plain*:s had not disclosed in evidence including her aLdavit when plain*: No.1 got married with the deceased; plain*: No.1 had not examined any witness to the alleged marriage between plain*: No.1 and deceased Rambir who could prove that she was DIVYANSHI 2025.02.28 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4767-2019 (O&M) Page 8 of 9 legally wedded; even no DNA report that plain*: No.2 is the daughter of the deceased Rambir was produced; that plain*:s failed to disclose even in the plaint or in the en*re evidence including her aLdavit as to on what date and at which place, plain*: No.1 was married to Rambir and who was witness of their marriage; the documentary evidence allegedly placed on record by the plain*:s in the form of ra*on card, Aadhar card and appointment on compensatory grounds etc. Ex.P2 to P11 were held to be per se not permissible as the plain*:s had failed to prove the same in accordance with law. Only the photocopies of the said documents were placed on record. Even the originals were not tendered. Thus, it is nowhere proven on record that plain*: No.1 was ever married to the deceased Rambir as alleged. 14. As regards the other conten*ons raised by learned counsel for the plain*:s, the same are also baseless and meritless. It is to be noted that plain*:s are aggrieved of the rapat dated 19.10.2012. However admiIedly, the said rapat dated 19.10.2012 has not been produced by the plain*:s before the learned Courts below. The plain*:s have failed to tender the impugned rapat dated 19.10.2012 and prove the said rapat on the case +le. Thus, plain*:s were not en*tled to relief of injunc*on. 15. Moreover, Plain*: No.1 had deposed in her cross-examina*on that suit land was acquired by Government of Haryana and that the defendants had taken compensa*on from the Government in respect of the suit land. In this background, ques*on of ownership does not arise. DIVYANSHI 2025.02.28 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4767-2019 (O&M) Page 9 of 9 16. Learned counsel for the appellants/plain*:s is unable to dispute or controvert the above said facts and +ndings. 17. 18. 25.02.2025 Divyanshi Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is dismissed.
Decision
Pending applica*ons, if any, stand disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2025.02.28 13:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document