Lt. Colonal Sajjan Singh Dhillon Lt. Colonal Sajjan Singh Dhillon v. Maj. Thandi Ram and Others Maj. Thandi Ram and Others
Case Details
RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) Reserved on: Reserved on:-02.12.2025 Pronounced on : 03.12.2025 Pronounced on Uploaded on:- 04.12.2025 Uploaded on: Whether only operative part of the judgment is Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment Lt. Colonal Sajjan Singh Dhillon Lt. Colonal Sajjan Singh Dhillon ....Appellant VERSUS Maj. Thandi Ram and Others Maj. Thandi Ram and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Present: Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul and Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocates Mr. Rahul and Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocates Mr. Rahul and Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocates For the respondents. For the respondents. -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J. MANDEEP PANNU, J. 1. the plaintiff challenging the concurrent Present RSA has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the concurrent the plaintiff challenging the concurrent Present RSA has been filed by findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.1999 and by the learned Additional District judgment and decree dated 10.12.1999 and by the learned Additional District judgment and decree dated 10.12.1999 and by the learned Additional District judgment and decree dated 10.12.1999 and by the learned Additional District the suit filed by Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.2001, whereby the suit filed by Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.2001, whereby Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.2001, whereby the plaintiff for declaration has been dismissed. the plaintiff for declaration has been dismissed. Brief Facts 2. The case set up by the plaintiff, as gathered from the plaint and The case set up by the plaintiff, as gathered from the plaint and The case set up by the plaintiff, as gathered from the plaint and The case set up by the plaintiff, as gathered from the plaint and documents placed on record, is that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of half documents placed on record, is that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of half documents placed on record, is that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of half documents placed on record, is that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of half onstructed over Plot No.1, measuring 600 sq. yards, shown in share of the house constructed over Plot No.1, measuring 600 sq. yards, shown in onstructed over Plot No.1, measuring 600 sq. yards, shown in share of the house c red colour in the site plan. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is a retired Lt. Colonel red colour in the site plan. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is a retired Lt. Colonel red colour in the site plan. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is a retired Lt. Colonel red colour in the site plan. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is a retired Lt. Colonel TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -2- - from Indian Army and is the son of defendant No.1 and brother of defendant No.2. from Indian Army and is the son of defendant No.1 and brother of defendant No.2. from Indian Army and is the son of defendant No.1 and brother of defendant No.2. from Indian Army and is the son of defendant No.1 and brother of defendant No.2. t No.1 has three daughters, namely Smt. Dharmo, Smt. It is averred that defendant No.1 has three daughters, namely Smt. Dharmo, Smt. t No.1 has three daughters, namely Smt. Dharmo, Smt. It is averred that defendan
Legal Reasoning
Manki and Gina Devi. According to the plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2, in Manki and Gina Devi. According to the plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2, in Manki and Gina Devi. According to the plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2, in Manki and Gina Devi. According to the plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2, in connivance with each other, procured a judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 in connivance with each other, procured a judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 in connivance with each other, procured a judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 in connivance with each other, procured a judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 in favour of defendant No.2, which is liable to be set aside. favour of defendant No.2, which is liable to be s favour of defendant No.2, which is liable to be s 3. The plaintiff asserts that in November 1989, the plaintiff and The plaintiff asserts that in November 1989, the plaintiff and The plaintiff asserts that in November 1989, the plaintiff and The plaintiff asserts that in November 1989, the plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement regarding division of joint family property defendants entered into an agreement regarding division of joint family property defendants entered into an agreement regarding division of joint family property defendants entered into an agreement regarding division of joint family property and executed a deed of agreement, which was signed by the plaintiff and and executed a deed of agreement, which was signed by the plaintiff and and executed a deed of agreement, which was signed by the plaintiff and and executed a deed of agreement, which was signed by the plaintiff and witnesses. It is further stated that Plot No.1 was defendants and attested by witnesses. It is further stated that Plot No.1 was witnesses. It is further stated that Plot No.1 was defendants and attested by purchased from joint family funds in the name of defendant No.1, and the purchased from joint family funds in the name of defendant No.1, and the purchased from joint family funds in the name of defendant No.1, and the purchased from joint family funds in the name of defendant No.1, and the residential kothi was constructed with joint funds of the plaintiff and defendants. residential kothi was constructed with joint funds of the plaintiff and defendants. residential kothi was constructed with joint funds of the plaintiff and defendants. residential kothi was constructed with joint funds of the plaintiff and defendants. intention to divide Kothi No.1 into Defendant No.1 is stated to have expressed his intention to divide Kothi No.1 into Defendant No.1 is stated to have expressed his Defendant No.1 is stated to have expressed his two portions in his letter dated 11.11.1986 addressed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff two portions in his letter dated 11.11.1986 addressed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff two portions in his letter dated 11.11.1986 addressed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff two portions in his letter dated 11.11.1986 addressed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff on renovation and partition by constructing a claims that he spent about ₹20,000/- on renovation and partition by constructing a on renovation and partition by constructing a claims that he spent about and that possession of the wall, thereby dividing the kothi into two portions, and that possession of the wall, thereby dividing the kothi into two portions, wall, thereby dividing the kothi into two portions, divided portions was given to the plaintiff and defendant No.2 accordingly. divided portions was given to the plaintiff and defendant No.2 accordingly. divided portions was given to the plaintiff and defendant No.2 accordingly. 4. The plaintiff further states that the parties had divided four items of The plaintiff further states that the parties had divided four items of The plaintiff further states that the parties had divided four items of The plaintiff further states that the parties had divided four items of joint family property marked as A, B, C, and D in the division deed. Under Head joint family property marked as A, B, C, and D in the division deed. Under H joint family property marked as A, B, C, and D in the division deed. Under H joint family property marked as A, B, C, and D in the division deed. Under H A, the plaintiff was allotted a house situated at Village Nehla, valued at ₹60,000/ A, the plaintiff was allotted a house situated at Village Nehla, valued at A, the plaintiff was allotted a house situated at Village Nehla, valued at ₹60,000/-, to defendant No.2. The properties under out of which the plaintiff paid ₹30,000/- to defendant No.2. The properties under to defendant No.2. The properties under out of which the plaintiff paid Heads B and C were other land and houses, while the suit property is covered Heads B and C were other land and houses, while the suit property is covered Heads B and C were other land and houses, while the suit property is covered Heads B and C were other land and houses, while the suit property is covered ead D. Defendant No.2 allegedly expressed his desire to purchase the under Head D. Defendant No.2 allegedly expressed his desire to purchase the ead D. Defendant No.2 allegedly expressed his desire to purchase the ead D. Defendant No.2 allegedly expressed his desire to purchase the plaintiff’s half share in Kothi No.1 for ₹2,60,000/ plaintiff’s half share in Kothi No.1 for , and the plaintiff agreed to sell ₹2,60,000/-, and the plaintiff agreed to sell his share on certain conditions. Defendant No.2 was required to pay ₹26,000/- his share on certain conditions. Defendant No.2 was required to pay his share on certain conditions. Defendant No.2 was required to pay - as TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -3- - .1989 and the remaining amount by 07.05.1990. The earnest money by 08.11.1989 and the remaining amount by 07.05.1990. The .1989 and the remaining amount by 07.05.1990. The earnest money by 08 plaintiff pleads that although defendant No.2 paid the earnest amount, he failed to plaintiff pleads that although defendant No.2 paid the earnest amount, he failed to plaintiff pleads that although defendant No.2 paid the earnest amount, he failed to plaintiff pleads that although defendant No.2 paid the earnest amount, he failed to pay the balance, rendering the agreement void and restoring the earlier partition. pay the balance, rendering the agreement void and restoring the earlier partition. pay the balance, rendering the agreement void and restoring the earlier partition. pay the balance, rendering the agreement void and restoring the earlier partition. to defeat his rights, defendants No.1 and 2 The plaintiff alleges that in order to defeat his rights, defendants No.1 and 2 to defeat his rights, defendants No.1 and 2 The plaintiff alleges that in order obtained the impugned decree fraudulently. obtained the impugned decree fraudulently. 5. The defendants filed their written statement denying the plaintiff’s The defendants filed their written statement denying the plaintiff’s The defendants filed their written statement denying the plaintiff’s The defendants filed their written statement denying the plaintiff’s case in toto. They denied existence of joint family funds, the purchase of the plot case in toto. They denied existence of joint family funds, the purchase of the plot case in toto. They denied existence of joint family funds, the purchase of the plot case in toto. They denied existence of joint family funds, the purchase of the plot unds, and any agreement of division as alleged. They contended that from joint funds, and any agreement of division as alleged. They contended that unds, and any agreement of division as alleged. They contended that unds, and any agreement of division as alleged. They contended that defendant No.1 purchased the plot in his exclusive name, constructed the house defendant No.1 purchased the plot in his exclusive name, constructed the house defendant No.1 purchased the plot in his exclusive name, constructed the house defendant No.1 purchased the plot in his exclusive name, constructed the house from his own income, and never consented to any division. The defendants from his own income, and never consented to any division. The defendants from his own income, and never consented to any division. The defendants from his own income, and never consented to any division. The defendants absolute owner in possession of the suit asserted that defendant No.2 is the absolute owner in possession of the suit absolute owner in possession of the suit asserted that defendant No.2 is the property pursuant to a valid compromise decree dated 25.11.1989, binding on all property pursuant to a valid compromise decree dated 25.11.1989, binding on all property pursuant to a valid compromise decree dated 25.11.1989, binding on all property pursuant to a valid compromise decree dated 25.11.1989, binding on all concerned including the plaintiff. They denied the plaintiff’s right, title or interest concerned including the plaintiff. They denied the plaintiff’s right, title or interest concerned including the plaintiff. They denied the plaintiff’s right, title or interest concerned including the plaintiff. They denied the plaintiff’s right, title or interest f the suit. in the suit property and prayed for dismissal of the suit. in the suit property and prayed for dismissal o 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/2 share of Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/2 share of Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/2 share of house in dispute as detailed in the head note of the plaint, if so its house in dispute as detailed in the head note of the plaint, if so its house in dispute as detailed in the head note of the plaint, if so its house in dispute as detailed in the head note of the plaint, if so its effect? OPD effect? OPD 2. issue No.1 is proved, then whether the plaintiff is entitled to If issue No.1 is proved, then whether the plaintiff is entitled to issue No.1 is proved, then whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the revenue entries/municipal entries corrected in his name as get the revenue entries/municipal entries corrected in his name as get the revenue entries/municipal entries corrected in his name as get the revenue entries/municipal entries corrected in his name as alleged? OPD alleged? OPD 3. Whether the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 passed in Whether the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 passed in Whether the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 passed in Civil Suit No.777-C dated 25.11.1989 in favour of Civil Suit No.777 defendant No.2, is C dated 25.11.1989 in favour of defendant No.2, is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -4- - wrong, illegal and misrepresentation and not binding upon the rights wrong, illegal and misrepresentation and not binding upon the rights wrong, illegal and misrepresentation and not binding upon the rights wrong, illegal and misrepresentation and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPD of the plaintiff? OPD 4. If Issues No.1 & 2 are proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled If Issues No.1 & 2 are proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled If Issues No.1 & 2 are proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any injunction as prayed for? OPD to any injunction as prayed for? OPD to any injunction as prayed for? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD from filing the present suit? OPD 8. barred? OPD Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD 9. laintiff has no cause of action to file the present Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present laintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD suit? OPD 10. Whether the suit is bad for mis 10. joinder of Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD necessary parties? OPD Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court 11. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court 11. fee and jurisdiction? OPD fee and jurisdiction? OPD 12. Relief. 12. 7. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined Ram Singh as PW1, In support of his case, the plaintiff examined Ram Singh as PW1, In support of his case, the plaintiff examined Ram Singh as PW1, In support of his case, the plaintiff examined Ram Singh as PW1, Chhabil Dass as PW2, Parminder as PW3, Haridat as PW4, Ravi Shankar as PW5, Chhabil Dass as PW2, Parminder as PW3, Haridat as PW4, Ravi Shankar as PW5, Chhabil Dass as PW2, Parminder as PW3, Haridat as PW4, Ravi Shankar as PW5, Chhabil Dass as PW2, Parminder as PW3, Haridat as PW4, Ravi Shankar as PW5, Om Parkash as PW6, Suresh as PW7, Jaimal as PW8, Rakesh as PW9, Ramphal as Om Parkash as PW6, Suresh as PW7, Jaimal as PW8, Rakesh as PW9, Ramphal as Om Parkash as PW6, Suresh as PW7, Jaimal as PW8, Rakesh as PW9, Ramphal as Om Parkash as PW6, Suresh as PW7, Jaimal as PW8, Rakesh as PW9, Ramphal as 12, Beer Singh as PW13, Sardara Singh, PW10, Wazir as PW11, Ram Sarup as PW12, Beer Singh as PW13, Sardara Singh, 12, Beer Singh as PW13, Sardara Singh, PW10, Wazir as PW11, Ram Sarup as PW Advocate, as PW14, Bal Mukand as PW15 and Sajjan Singh as PW16. Certain Advocate, as PW14, Bal Mukand as PW15 and Sajjan Singh as PW16. Certain Advocate, as PW14, Bal Mukand as PW15 and Sajjan Singh as PW16. Certain Advocate, as PW14, Bal Mukand as PW15 and Sajjan Singh as PW16. Certain documents were also tendered in evidence. documents were also tendered in evidence. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -5- - 8. Defendant No.1 appeared as DW1 and defendant No.2 as DW2 and Defendant No.1 appeared as DW1 and defendant No.2 as DW2 and Defendant No.1 appeared as DW1 and defendant No.2 as DW2 and Defendant No.1 appeared as DW1 and defendant No.2 as DW2 and t of their defence. they also produced documents in support of their defence. they also produced documents in suppor Findings of the trial Court Findings of the trial Court 9. The trial Court, after appreciating the entire oral and documentary The trial Court, after appreciating the entire oral and documentary The trial Court, after appreciating the entire oral and documentary The trial Court, after appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff had completely failed to establish his plea that Plot evidence, held that the plaintiff had completely failed to establish his plea that Plot evidence, held that the plaintiff had completely failed to establish his plea that Plot evidence, held that the plaintiff had completely failed to establish his plea that Plot hased or built out of joint Hindu No.1 and the house constructed thereon were purchased or built out of joint Hindu No.1 and the house constructed thereon were purc No.1 and the house constructed thereon were purc family funds, or that any valid partition of the suit property had ever taken place. family funds, or that any valid partition of the suit property had ever taken place. family funds, or that any valid partition of the suit property had ever taken place. family funds, or that any valid partition of the suit property had ever taken place. The Court noted that although the plaintiff relied heavily on an alleged agreement The Court noted that although the plaintiff relied heavily on an alleged agreement The Court noted that although the plaintiff relied heavily on an alleged agreement The Court noted that although the plaintiff relied heavily on an alleged agreement property and the (Ex.PW5/2) said to record the division of joint family property and the (Ex.PW5/2) said to record the division of joint family (Ex.PW5/2) said to record the division of joint family arrangement regarding Kothi No.1, the said document was unregistered and arrangement regarding Kothi No.1, the said document was unregistered and arrangement regarding Kothi No.1, the said document was unregistered and arrangement regarding Kothi No.1, the said document was unregistered and amounted to an instrument of partition requiring compulsory registration, amounted to an instrument of partition requiring compulsory registration, amounted to an instrument of partition requiring compulsory registration, amounted to an instrument of partition requiring compulsory registration, rendering it inadmissible in evidence. The Court further found that the plaintiff’s rendering it inadmissible in evidence. The Court further found that the plaintiff’s rendering it inadmissible in evidence. The Court further found that the plaintiff’s rendering it inadmissible in evidence. The Court further found that the plaintiff’s ported by any reliable of partition and delivery of possession was not supported by any reliable of partition and delivery of possession was not sup version of partition and delivery of possession was not sup he oral statements of witnesses were inconsistent, and even the plaintiff evidence. The oral statements of witnesses were inconsistent, and even the plaintiff he oral statements of witnesses were inconsistent, and even the plaintiff he oral statements of witnesses were inconsistent, and even the plaintiff as PW16 admitted that no portion of the house was in his actual possession. The as PW16 admitted that no portion of the house was in his actual possession. The as PW16 admitted that no portion of the house was in his actual possession. The as PW16 admitted that no portion of the house was in his actual possession. The er’s inspection also revealed that the plaintiff was not in Local Commissioner’s inspection also revealed that the plaintiff was not in er’s inspection also revealed that the plaintiff was not in Local Commission possession of any part of the disputed property. The Court observed that the letter possession of any part of the disputed property. The Court observed that the letter possession of any part of the disputed property. The Court observed that the letter possession of any part of the disputed property. The Court observed that the letter dated 11.11.1986 allegedly written by defendant No.1 did not prove any partition, dated 11.11.1986 allegedly written by defendant No.1 did not prove any partition, dated 11.11.1986 allegedly written by defendant No.1 did not prove any partition, dated 11.11.1986 allegedly written by defendant No.1 did not prove any partition, rty was joint Hindu family property. On the contrary, nor did it show that the property was joint Hindu family property. On the contrary, rty was joint Hindu family property. On the contrary, nor did it show that the prope the evidence established that the plot and the construction were in the exclusive the evidence established that the plot and the construction were in the exclusive the evidence established that the plot and the construction were in the exclusive the evidence established that the plot and the construction were in the exclusive ownership of defendant No.1, who was fully competent to transfer it in favour of ownership of defendant No.1, who was fully competent to transfer it in favour of ownership of defendant No.1, who was fully competent to transfer it in favour of ownership of defendant No.1, who was fully competent to transfer it in favour of t the plaintiff failed to show that the parties defendant No.2. The Court also held that the plaintiff failed to show that the parties t the plaintiff failed to show that the parties defendant No.2. The Court also held tha were governed by Hindu law so as to claim a coparcenary interest. R were governed by Hindu law so as ather, being to claim a coparcenary interest. Rather, being Jats governed by custom, no presumption of joint Hindu family property could be Jats governed by custom, no presumption of joint Hindu family property could be Jats governed by custom, no presumption of joint Hindu family property could be Jats governed by custom, no presumption of joint Hindu family property could be TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -6- - 25.11.1989 was held to be drawn. Consequently, the compromise decree dated 25.11.1989 was held to be drawn. Consequently, the compromise decree dated drawn. Consequently, the compromise decree dated perfectly legal, valid and binding, and all the issues concerning the plaintiff’s perfectly legal, valid and binding, and all the issues concerning the plaintiff’s perfectly legal, valid and binding, and all the issues concerning the plaintiff’s perfectly legal, valid and binding, and all the issues concerning the plaintiff’s ownership, entitlement to correction of entries, challenge to the decree, injunctive ownership, entitlement to correction of entries, challenge to the decree, injunctive ownership, entitlement to correction of entries, challenge to the decree, injunctive ownership, entitlement to correction of entries, challenge to the decree, injunctive was accordingly relief, and maintainability were decided against him. The suit was accordingly relief, and maintainability were decided against him. The suit relief, and maintainability were decided against him. The suit dismissed. Findings of the First Appellate Court Findings of the First Appellate Court 10. The learned First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial The learned First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial The learned First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial The learned First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial appraisal of the entire evidence and held that the Court after a comprehensive re-appraisal of the entire evidence and held that the appraisal of the entire evidence and held that the Court after a comprehensive re ove that the suit property was joint Hindu family plaintiff had utterly failed to prove that the suit property was joint Hindu family ove that the suit property was joint Hindu family plaintiff had utterly failed to pr property or that he had any share, title or possession therein. The Court relied on property or that he had any share, title or possession therein. The Court relied on property or that he had any share, title or possession therein. The Court relied on property or that he had any share, title or possession therein. The Court relied on the plaintiff’s own admissions that the plot in dispute had been allotted exclusively the plaintiff’s own admissions that the plot in dispute had been allotted exclusively the plaintiff’s own admissions that the plot in dispute had been allotted exclusively the plaintiff’s own admissions that the plot in dispute had been allotted exclusively that the plaintiff himself had been allotted a to his father, Major Thandi Ram, and that the plaintiff himself had been allotted a that the plaintiff himself had been allotted a to his father, Major Thandi Ram, and separate plot as an army officer, thereby negating the plea of joint acquisition or separate plot as an army officer, thereby negating the plea of joint acquisition or separate plot as an army officer, thereby negating the plea of joint acquisition or separate plot as an army officer, thereby negating the plea of joint acquisition or acquired property into the joint family hotchpotch. The Court blending of self-acquired property into the joint family hotchpotch. The Court acquired property into the joint family hotchpotch. The Court blending of self mentary proof of contribution to the found that the plaintiff had produced no documentary proof of contribution to the mentary proof of contribution to the found that the plaintiff had produced no docu construction of the suit house, and the oral testimony of PW9, PW10, PW11 and construction of the suit house, and the oral testimony of PW9, PW10, PW11 and construction of the suit house, and the oral testimony of PW9, PW10, PW11 and construction of the suit house, and the oral testimony of PW9, PW10, PW11 and PW13 PW13 PW13 PW13 regarding partition or delivery of possession was regarding partition or delivery of possession was regarding partition or delivery of possession was regarding partition or delivery of possession was inconsistent, inconsistent, inconsistent, inconsistent, deed uncorroborated and insufficient. It was also held that the unregistered deed uncorroborated and insufficient. It was also held that the unregistered uncorroborated and insufficient. It was also held that the unregistered Ex.PW5/2 relied upon by the plaintiff was inadmissible as it amounted to an Ex.PW5/2 relied upon by the plaintiff was inadmissible as it amounted to an Ex.PW5/2 relied upon by the plaintiff was inadmissible as it amounted to an Ex.PW5/2 relied upon by the plaintiff was inadmissible as it amounted to an instrument of partition requiring compulsory registration, and no permission for instrument of partition requiring compulsory registration, and no permission for instrument of partition requiring compulsory registration, and no permission for instrument of partition requiring compulsory registration, and no permission for leading secondary evidence had been sought. The Court endorsed the trial Court’s leading secondary evidence had been sought. The Court endorsed the trial Court’s leading secondary evidence had been sought. The Court endorsed the trial Court’s leading secondary evidence had been sought. The Court endorsed the trial Court’s t the parties, being Jats from Haryana, were governed by customary reasoning that the parties, being Jats from Haryana, were governed by customary t the parties, being Jats from Haryana, were governed by customary t the parties, being Jats from Haryana, were governed by customary law and not by Hindu coparcenary law, and therefore no presumption of joint law and not by Hindu coparcenary law, and therefore no presumption of joint law and not by Hindu coparcenary law, and therefore no presumption of joint law and not by Hindu coparcenary law, and therefore no presumption of joint Hindu family property could arise. It further held that the letters written by Hindu family property could arise. It further held that the letters written by Hindu family property could arise. It further held that the letters written by Hindu family property could arise. It further held that the letters written by TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -7- - ny actual partition or delivery of possession, and defendant No.1 did not establish any actual partition or delivery of possession, and ny actual partition or delivery of possession, and defendant No.1 did not establish a that the plaintiff was admittedly not in possession of any portion of the suit that the plaintiff was admittedly not in possession of any portion of the suit that the plaintiff was admittedly not in possession of any portion of the suit that the plaintiff was admittedly not in possession of any portion of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. The appellate Court also concluded that a property on the date of filing of the suit. The appellate Court also concluded that a property on the date of filing of the suit. The appellate Court also concluded that a property on the date of filing of the suit. The appellate Court also concluded that a nsequential relief of possession was not mere declaratory suit without seeking consequential relief of possession was not nsequential relief of possession was not mere declaratory suit without seeking co maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Finally, the Court held maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Finally, the Court held maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Finally, the Court held maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Finally, the Court held that the plaintiff, having no right or interest in the property, could not impeach the that the plaintiff, having no right or interest in the property, could not impeach the that the plaintiff, having no right or interest in the property, could not impeach the that the plaintiff, having no right or interest in the property, could not impeach the no fraud or illegality had been compromise decree dated 25.11.1989, and since no fraud or illegality had been compromise decree dated 25.11.1989, and since compromise decree dated 25.11.1989, and since proved, the decree was valid and binding. Consequently, the appeal was found proved, the decree was valid and binding. Consequently, the appeal was found proved, the decree was valid and binding. Consequently, the appeal was found proved, the decree was valid and binding. Consequently, the appeal was found devoid of merit and was dismissed with costs, and the judgment and decree dated devoid of merit and was dismissed with costs, and the judgment and decree dated devoid of merit and was dismissed with costs, and the judgment and decree dated devoid of merit and was dismissed with costs, and the judgment and decree dated 10.12.1999 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar were affirmed. 10.12.1999 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar were 10.12.1999 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar were 11. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellant has filed the present regular second appeal, which is contested by the appellant has filed the present regular second appeal, which is contested by the appellant has filed the present regular second appeal, which is contested by the appellant has filed the present regular second appeal, which is contested by the respondents.
Legal Reasoning
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant Submission of learned counsel for the appellant Submission of learned counsel for the appellant 12. ourts below failed Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Courts below failed Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the to correctly appreciate the evidence which, according to him, clearly established to correctly appreciate the evidence which, according to him, clearly established to correctly appreciate the evidence which, according to him, clearly established to correctly appreciate the evidence which, according to him, clearly established that the suit property was purchased and constructed out of joint family funds, as that the suit property was purchased and constructed out of joint family funds, as that the suit property was purchased and constructed out of joint family funds, as that the suit property was purchased and constructed out of joint family funds, as even DW-1 Major Thand i Ram, father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, had 1 Major Thandi Ram, father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, had i Ram, father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, had 16/C and admitted his signatures on various letters Ex.PW-16/A, PW-16/B, PW-16/C and admitted his signatures on various letters Ex.PW admitted his signatures on various letters Ex.PW 16/D addressed to the plaintiff, which disclosed that the property was to be PW-16/D addressed to the plaintiff, which disclosed that the property was to be 16/D addressed to the plaintiff, which disclosed that the property was to be 16/D addressed to the plaintiff, which disclosed that the property was to be nt No.2. It was further submitted that distributed between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. It was further submitted that nt No.2. It was further submitted that distributed between the plaintiff and defenda Ex.PW-16/A admitted by DW 16/A admitted by DW-1, the complaint Ex.PW 15/1 given by Major 1, the complaint Ex.PW-15/1 given by Major 15/2 all showed that the Thandi Ram to the police, and the compromise Ex.PW-15/2 all showed that the Thandi Ram to the police, and the compromise Ex.PW Thandi Ram to the police, and the compromise Ex.PW argued that defendant himself treated the property as joint family property. It was argued that defendant himself treated the property as joint family property. It was defendant himself treated the property as joint family property. It was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -8- - 2 Lt. Col. Partap 1 also admitted the compromise deed Ex.PW-15/2 and DW-2 Lt. Col. Partap 1 also admitted the compromise deed Ex.PW DW-1 also admitted the compromise deed Ex.PW Singh similarly admitted their signatures, proving joint acquisition. Counsel Singh similarly admitted their signatures, proving joint acquisition. Counsel Singh similarly admitted their signatures, proving joint acquisition. Counsel Singh similarly admitted their signatures, proving joint acquisition. Counsel contended that once such evidence was on record, it stood established that the contended that once such evidence was on record, it stood established that the contended that once such evidence was on record, it stood established that the contended that once such evidence was on record, it stood established that the constructed from joint family funds. It was then submitted that, the property was constructed from joint family funds. It was then submitted that, the constructed from joint family funds. It was then submitted that, the constructed from joint family funds. It was then submitted that, the moment it is proved that the appellant had half share in the suit property, the moment it is proved that the appellant had half share in the suit property, the moment it is proved that the appellant had half share in the suit property, the moment it is proved that the appellant had half share in the suit property, the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 passed in favour of respondent No.2 behind judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 passed in favour of respondent No.2 behind judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 passed in favour of respondent No.2 behind judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 passed in favour of respondent No.2 behind was clearly collusive and fraudulent, the appellant not the back of the appellant was clearly collusive and fraudulent, the appellant not was clearly collusive and fraudulent, the appellant not the back of the appellant having been impleaded as a party in that suit. Learned counsel further argued that having been impleaded as a party in that suit. Learned counsel further argued that having been impleaded as a party in that suit. Learned counsel further argued that having been impleaded as a party in that suit. Learned counsel further argued that in Civil Suit No.777 dated 25.11.1989 (Ex.P14), defendant No.2 in para 2 of the in Civil Suit No.777 dated 25.11.1989 (Ex.P14), defendant No.2 in para 2 of the in Civil Suit No.777 dated 25.11.1989 (Ex.P14), defendant No.2 in para 2 of the in Civil Suit No.777 dated 25.11.1989 (Ex.P14), defendant No.2 in para 2 of the property was joint Hindu family property, and plaint himself admitted that the suit property was joint Hindu family property, and property was joint Hindu family property, and plaint himself admitted that the suit this admission, coupled with the letters written by Major Thandi Ram, clearly this admission, coupled with the letters written by Major Thandi Ram, clearly this admission, coupled with the letters written by Major Thandi Ram, clearly this admission, coupled with the letters written by Major Thandi Ram, clearly proved that the property was purchased from joint family funds while both brothers proved that the property was purchased from joint family funds while both brothers proved that the property was purchased from joint family funds while both brothers proved that the property was purchased from joint family funds while both brothers ce the earlier decree was alleged to were residing together. It was contended that once the earlier decree was alleged to were residing together. It was contended that on were residing together. It was contended that on be fraudulent, the burden shifted to the respondents to prove that the suit property be fraudulent, the burden shifted to the respondents to prove that the suit property be fraudulent, the burden shifted to the respondents to prove that the suit property be fraudulent, the burden shifted to the respondents to prove that the suit property was not joint family property. Counsel argued that the compromise deed Ex.PW- was not joint family property. Counsel argued that the compromise deed Ex.PW was not joint family property. Counsel argued that the compromise deed Ex.PW was not joint family property. Counsel argued that the compromise deed Ex.PW 15/2 stood duly proved by PW-15 Ram Singh, Clerk from SSP 15/2 stood duly proved by PW Office, Hissar, and 15 Ram Singh, Clerk from SSP Office, Hissar, and , showing joint 2 proved that the property was rented out by B & R Hisar, showing joint 2 proved that the property was rented out by B & R PW-2 proved that the property was rented out by B & R ownership. He submitted that the file noting dated 25.11.1989 at page 106 showed ownership. He submitted that the file noting dated 25.11.1989 at page 106 showed ownership. He submitted that the file noting dated 25.11.1989 at page 106 showed ownership. He submitted that the file noting dated 25.11.1989 at page 106 showed ver, that the suit had been ordered to be registered for hearing on 27.11.1989, however, that the suit had been ordered to be registered for hearing on 27.11.1989, howe that the suit had been ordered to be registered for hearing on 27.11.1989, howe on the same day, without waiting for the date fixed, proxy counsels for both sides on the same day, without waiting for the date fixed, proxy counsels for both sides on the same day, without waiting for the date fixed, proxy counsels for both sides on the same day, without waiting for the date fixed, proxy counsels for both sides he absence of appeared and had the matter decreed in favour of defendant No.2. The absence of appeared and had the matter decreed in favour of defendant No.2 appeared and had the matter decreed in favour of defendant No.2 the real counsel and the unexplained manner in which the decree was passed the real counsel and the unexplained manner in which the decree was passed the real counsel and the unexplained manner in which the decree was passed the real counsel and the unexplained manner in which the decree was passed showed fraud, and on this ground alone, the decree deserved to be set aside. and on this ground alone, the decree deserved to be set aside. and on this ground alone, the decree deserved to be set aside. 16/D, Learned counsel emphasised that the admitted letters Ex.PW-16/A to PW-16/D, Learned counsel emphasised that the admitted letters Ex.PW Learned counsel emphasised that the admitted letters Ex.PW TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -9- - 1, showed that the suit property was joint and that the appellant admitted by DW-1, showed that the suit property was joint and that the appellant 1, showed that the suit property was joint and that the appellant admitted by DW had half share. It was further argued that both the had half share. It was further argu ourts below ignored vital ed that both the Courts below ignored vital documentary and oral admissions of DW-1 and DW documentary and oral admissions of DW 2, and wrongly held that the 1 and DW-2, and wrongly held that the plaintiff was not in possession, whereas the appellant was in possession of half plaintiff was not in possession, whereas the appellant was in possession of half plaintiff was not in possession, whereas the appellant was in possession of half plaintiff was not in possession, whereas the appellant was in possession of half roperty. Lastly, counsel portion and possession need not be claimed in a joint property. Lastly, counsel portion and possession need not be claimed in a joint p portion and possession need not be claimed in a joint p existing right in the joint property, which submitted that the appellant had a pre-existing right in the joint property, which existing right in the joint property, which submitted that the appellant had a pre was purchased from joint family funds, and the findings of both courts below was purchased from joint family funds, and the findings of both courts below was purchased from joint family funds, and the findings of both courts below was purchased from joint family funds, and the findings of both courts below ngs and regarding custom and applicability of Hindu law were contrary to pleadings and regarding custom and applicability of Hindu law were contrary to pleadi regarding custom and applicability of Hindu law were contrary to pleadi evidence and therefore unsustainable in law. evidence and therefore unsustainable in law. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 13. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the concurrent Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the concurrent Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the concurrent Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the concurrent and findings of both courts below are based on a correct appreciation of evidence and findings of both courts below are based on a correct appreciation of evidence findings of both courts below are based on a correct appreciation of evidence require no interference, as the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property was require no interference, as the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property was require no interference, as the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property was require no interference, as the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property was joint Hindu family property or that any joint family nucleus existed from which it joint Hindu family property or that any joint family nucleus existed from which it joint Hindu family property or that any joint family nucleus existed from which it joint Hindu family property or that any joint family nucleus existed from which it could be purchased or constructed. On the contrary, the evidence shows that uld be purchased or constructed. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the contrary, the evidence shows that e plots were allotted to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in their individual separate plots were allotted to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in their individual e plots were allotted to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in their individual e plots were allotted to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in their individual capacities as Army personnel, and both constructed their houses independently capacities as Army personnel, and both constructed their houses independently capacities as Army personnel, and both constructed their houses independently capacities as Army personnel, and both constructed their houses independently from their own funds. It was emphasised that the plaintiff himself admitted in from their own funds. It was emphasised that the plaintiff himself admitted in from their own funds. It was emphasised that the plaintiff himself admitted in from their own funds. It was emphasised that the plaintiff himself admitted in cross-examination tha t the plot in dispute was allotted to defendant No.1, that the examination that the plot in dispute was allotted to defendant No.1, that the t the plot in dispute was allotted to defendant No.1, that the house was constructed by his father, and that he had no receipts, accounts, or house was constructed by his father, and that he had no receipts, accounts, or house was constructed by his father, and that he had no receipts, accounts, or house was constructed by his father, and that he had no receipts, accounts, or documentary proof of having contributed towards the purchase or construction of documentary proof of having contributed towards the purchase or construction of documentary proof of having contributed towards the purchase or construction of documentary proof of having contributed towards the purchase or construction of submitted that the alleged deed of agreement the suit property. Counsel further submitted that the alleged deed of agreement submitted that the alleged deed of agreement the suit property. Counsel further dated 08.11.1989 (Ex.PW15/2) is neither registered nor stamped, was never proved dated 08.11.1989 (Ex.PW15/2) is neither registered nor stamped, was never proved dated 08.11.1989 (Ex.PW15/2) is neither registered nor stamped, was never proved dated 08.11.1989 (Ex.PW15/2) is neither registered nor stamped, was never proved in accordance with law, and is inadmissible, and even otherwise it is not a in accordance with law, and is inadmissible, and even otherwise it is not a in accordance with law, and is inadmissible, and even otherwise it is not a in accordance with law, and is inadmissible, and even otherwise it is not a TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -10- - ompulsory registration; the memorandum of partition but an instrument requiring compulsory registration; the memorandum of partition but an instrument requiring c memorandum of partition but an instrument requiring c photocopy produced without laying foundation for secondary evidence cannot be photocopy produced without laying foundation for secondary evidence cannot be photocopy produced without laying foundation for secondary evidence cannot be photocopy produced without laying foundation for secondary evidence cannot be relied upon. The alleged letters relied upon by the plaintiff merely show an relied upon. The alleged letters relied upon by the plaintiff merely show an relied upon. The alleged letters relied upon by the plaintiff merely show an relied upon. The alleged letters relied upon by the plaintiff merely show an artition expression of intention by defendant No.1 but do not establish that any partition expression of intention by defendant No.1 but do not establish that any p expression of intention by defendant No.1 but do not establish that any p ever took place or that possession of half share was handed over to the plaintiff; the ever took place or that possession of half share was handed over to the plaintiff; the ever took place or that possession of half share was handed over to the plaintiff; the ever took place or that possession of half share was handed over to the plaintiff; the plaintiff’s own admission that he was not in possession of any part of the house plaintiff’s own admission that he was not in possession of any part of the house plaintiff’s own admission that he was not in possession of any part of the house plaintiff’s own admission that he was not in possession of any part of the house g the demolishes his case. Counsel also relied upon the plaintiff’s conduct, including the demolishes his case. Counsel also relied upon the plaintiff’s conduct, includin demolishes his case. Counsel also relied upon the plaintiff’s conduct, includin criminal complaints and disputes with family members, to show that the story put criminal complaints and disputes with family members, to show that the story put criminal complaints and disputes with family members, to show that the story put criminal complaints and disputes with family members, to show that the story put forth was an afterthought. It was contended that the consent decrees Ex.P142 and forth was an afterthought. It was contended that the consent decrees Ex.P142 and forth was an afterthought. It was contended that the consent decrees Ex.P142 and forth was an afterthought. It was contended that the consent decrees Ex.P142 and Ex.P143, under which defendant No.1 transferred the property to defendant No.2, Ex.P143, under which defendant No.1 transferred the property to defendant No.2, Ex.P143, under which defendant No.1 transferred the property to defendant No.2, Ex.P143, under which defendant No.1 transferred the property to defendant No.2, ectly legal and valid, and the plaintiff, having no right or interest in the suit are perfectly legal and valid, and the plaintiff, having no right or interest in the suit ectly legal and valid, and the plaintiff, having no right or interest in the suit ectly legal and valid, and the plaintiff, having no right or interest in the suit property, cannot challenge their registration or validity; moreover, the plaintiff property, cannot challenge their registration or validity; moreover, the plaintiff property, cannot challenge their registration or validity; moreover, the plaintiff property, cannot challenge their registration or validity; moreover, the plaintiff himself benefited from a similar consent decree (Ex.D2) without raising any himself benefited from a similar consent decree (Ex.D2) without raising any himself benefited from a similar consent decree (Ex.D2) without raising any himself benefited from a similar consent decree (Ex.D2) without raising any hence he is estopped from disputing the validity of such decrees objection, and hence he is estopped from disputing the validity of such decrees hence he is estopped from disputing the validity of such decrees hence he is estopped from disputing the validity of such decrees now. The respondents argued that the plaintiff’s suit was not maintainable as he now. The respondents argued that the plaintiff’s suit was not maintainable as he now. The respondents argued that the plaintiff’s suit was not maintainable as he now. The respondents argued that the plaintiff’s suit was not maintainable as he was admittedly not in possession of the suit property and failed to seek was admittedly not in possession of the suit property and failed to seek was admittedly not in possession of the suit property and failed to seek was admittedly not in possession of the suit property and failed to seek bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, consequential relief, attracting the bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, consequential relief, attracting the 1963. Lastly, counsel submitted that the parties are governed by customary law, 1963. Lastly, counsel submitted that the parties are governed by customary law, 1963. Lastly, counsel submitted that the parties are governed by customary law, 1963. Lastly, counsel submitted that the parties are governed by customary law, not Hindu law, and there is no presumption of joint Hindu family or joint family not Hindu law, and there is no presumption of joint Hindu family or joint family not Hindu law, and there is no presumption of joint Hindu family or joint family not Hindu law, and there is no presumption of joint Hindu family or joint family property among Jats of Haryana, thus, the plai property among Jats of Haryana, ntiff failed to prove any custom thus, the plaintiff failed to prove any custom entitling him to a share in the property and the findings of both courts below are entitling him to a share in the property and the findings of both courts below are entitling him to a share in the property and the findings of both courts below are entitling him to a share in the property and the findings of both courts below are fully justified. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -11- - Findings of this Court Findings of this Court 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having entire evidence, the judgments of both courts below, meticulously examined the entire evidence, the judgments of both courts below, entire evidence, the judgments of both courts below, meticulously examined the and the submissions made in the present appeal, this Court finds no substance in and the submissions made in the present appeal, this Court finds no substance in and the submissions made in the present appeal, this Court finds no substance in and the submissions made in the present appeal, this Court finds no substance in any of the grounds urged by the appellant. The entire case of the appellant revolves any of the grounds urged by the appellant. The entire case of the appellant revolves any of the grounds urged by the appellant. The entire case of the appellant revolves any of the grounds urged by the appellant. The entire case of the appellant revolves ature of the suit property as Joint Hindu Family around three broad aspects: (i) the nature of the suit property as Joint Hindu Family ature of the suit property as Joint Hindu Family around three broad aspects: (i) the n property; (ii) the allegation that the consent decrees dated 25.11.1989 and property; (ii) the allegation that the consent decrees dated 25.11.1989 and property; (ii) the allegation that the consent decrees dated 25.11.1989 and property; (ii) the allegation that the consent decrees dated 25.11.1989 and 02.12.1989 were obtained fraudulently and are illegal; and (iii) the evidentiary 02.12.1989 were obtained fraudulently and are illegal; and (iii) the evidentiary 02.12.1989 were obtained fraudulently and are illegal; and (iii) the evidentiary 02.12.1989 were obtained fraudulently and are illegal; and (iii) the evidentiary .1989 and the various letters worth of the alleged deed of agreement dated 08.11.1989 and the various letters worth of the alleged deed of agreement dated 08.11 worth of the alleged deed of agreement dated 08.11 allegedly written by defendant No.1 to the appellant. allegedly written by defendant No.1 to the appellant. allegedly written by defendant No.1 to the appellant. 15. On the question whether the suit property constitutes Joint Hindu On the question whether the suit property constitutes Joint Hindu On the question whether the suit property constitutes Joint Hindu On the question whether the suit property constitutes Joint Hindu Family (JHF) property, the appellant has utterly failed to discharge the initial Family (JHF) property, the appellant has utterly failed to discharge the initial Family (JHF) property, the appellant has utterly failed to discharge the initial Family (JHF) property, the appellant has utterly failed to discharge the initial f himself, appearing as PW16, admitted that the plot in dispute burden. The plaintiff himself, appearing as PW16, admitted that the plot in dispute f himself, appearing as PW16, admitted that the plot in dispute burden. The plaintif was allotted to defendant No.1 individually by virtue of his Army status, in the was allotted to defendant No.1 individually by virtue of his Army status, in the was allotted to defendant No.1 individually by virtue of his Army status, in the was allotted to defendant No.1 individually by virtue of his Army status, in the same way a separate plot was allotted to the plaintiff himself. Once the allotment is same way a separate plot was allotted to the plaintiff himself. Once the allotment is same way a separate plot was allotted to the plaintiff himself. Once the allotment is same way a separate plot was allotted to the plaintiff himself. Once the allotment is ral, the presumption of joint family or joint family nucleus individual and not ancestral, the presumption of joint family or joint family nucleus ral, the presumption of joint family or joint family nucleus individual and not ancest does not arise. The consistent evidence of DW1 (the father) and DW2 (defendant does not arise. The consistent evidence of DW1 (the father) and DW2 (defendant does not arise. The consistent evidence of DW1 (the father) and DW2 (defendant does not arise. The consistent evidence of DW1 (the father) and DW2 (defendant No.2) shows that the house was constructed by defendant No.1 from his own No.2) shows that the house was constructed by defendant No.1 from his own No.2) shows that the house was constructed by defendant No.1 from his own No.2) shows that the house was constructed by defendant No.1 from his own ed by him. The plaintiff could funds, the accounts of which were maintained by him. The plaintiff could funds, the accounts of which were maintain not receipt, account book, proof of contributing any amount towards the produce any receipt, account book, proof of contributing any amount towards the receipt, account book, proof of contributing any amount towards the receipt, account book, proof of contributing any amount towards the purchase or construction. His vague assertion that he “gave money to his father” is purchase or construction. His vague assertion that he “gave money to his father” is purchase or construction. His vague assertion that he “gave money to his father” is purchase or construction. His vague assertion that he “gave money to his father” is ed by the courts below. an unsubstantiated statement and has rightly been discarded by the courts below. an unsubstantiated statement and has rightly been discard an unsubstantiated statement and has rightly been discard examination The appellant relied heavily on the stray admission of DW1 in cross-examination The appellant relied heavily on the stray admission of DW1 in cross The appellant relied heavily on the stray admission of DW1 in cross that “he and his father constituted a joint Hindu family”, but such a bald statement, that “he and his father constituted a joint Hindu family”, but such a bald statement, that “he and his father constituted a joint Hindu family”, but such a bald statement, that “he and his father constituted a joint Hindu family”, but such a bald statement, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -12- - come, does not without any pleading, proof of jointness, common mess, or joint income, does not without any pleading, proof of jointness, common mess, or joint in without any pleading, proof of jointness, common mess, or joint in acquired property into joint family property. The law is automatically convert self-acquired property into joint family property. The law is acquired property into joint family property. The law is automatically convert self settled that mere membership in a Hindu family does not make the property well-settled that mere membership in a Hindu family does not make the property settled that mere membership in a Hindu family does not make the property settled that mere membership in a Hindu family does not make the property nto the joint family hat must be proved is blending of separate property into the joint family hat must be proved is blending of separate property i joint. What must be proved is blending of separate property i something completely absent here. The courts below have also rightly hotchpotch, something completely absent here. The courts below have also rightly something completely absent here. The courts below have also rightly something completely absent here. The courts below have also rightly noted that the parties are Jats of Haryana who are governed by customary law and noted that the parties are Jats of Haryana who are governed by customary law and noted that the parties are Jats of Haryana who are governed by customary law and noted that the parties are Jats of Haryana who are governed by customary law and not by the uncodified principles of Hindu law relating to coparcenary. The not by the uncodified principles of Hindu law relating to coparcenary. Th not by the uncodified principles of Hindu law relating to coparcenary. Th not by the uncodified principles of Hindu law relating to coparcenary. Th appellant has led no evidence whatsoever to show the existence of any custom appellant has led no evidence whatsoever to show the existence of any custom appellant has led no evidence whatsoever to show the existence of any custom appellant has led no evidence whatsoever to show the existence of any custom acquired property of his father. Thus, under which he acquires a right in the self-acquired property of his father. Thus, acquired property of his father. Thus, under which he acquires a right in the self the conclusion that the property is not joint Hindu family property stands firmly the conclusion that the property is not joint Hindu family property stands firmly the conclusion that the property is not joint Hindu family property stands firmly the conclusion that the property is not joint Hindu family property stands firmly established. 16. Coming Coming Coming Coming to to to to the alleged deed of agreement dated 08.11.1989 the alleged deed of agreement dated 08.11.1989 the alleged deed of agreement dated 08.11.1989 the alleged deed of agreement dated 08.11.1989 (Ex.PW15/2), the arguments of the appellant do not withstand legal scrutiny. The (Ex.PW15/2), the arguments of the appellant do not withstand legal scrutiny. The (Ex.PW15/2), the arguments of the appellant do not withstand legal scrutiny. The (Ex.PW15/2), the arguments of the appellant do not withstand legal scrutiny. The the original was never produced, the document produced is only a photocopy, the original was never produced, the the original was never produced, the document produced is only a photoco scribe was not examined, no foundational facts for leading secondary scribe was not examined, evidence no foundational facts for leading secondary evidence and even otherwise, the document is unstamped and were ever established and even otherwise, the document is unstamped and and even otherwise, the document is unstamped and were ever established unregistered. More importantly, the document on its face is not a memorandum of unregistered. More importantly, the document on its face is not a memorandum of unregistered. More importantly, the document on its face is not a memorandum of unregistered. More importantly, the document on its face is not a memorandum of operties in a particular past partition but an instrument proposing division of properties in a particular past partition but an instrument proposing divisio past partition but an instrument proposing divisio a document that would compulsorily require registration under Section 17 manner, a document that would compulsorily require registration under Section 17 a document that would compulsorily require registration under Section 17 a document that would compulsorily require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The courts below therefore rightly held it inadmissible. of the Registration Act. The courts below therefore rightly held it inadmissible. of the Registration Act. The courts below therefore rightly held it inadmissible. of the Registration Act. The courts below therefore rightly held it inadmissible. not prove that any Even if one were to read it for collateral purposes, it does not prove that any Even if one were to read it for collateral purposes, it does Even if one were to read it for collateral purposes, it does partition actually took place, or that possession was ever handed over to the partition actually took place, or that possession was ever handed over to the partition actually took place, or that possession was ever handed over to the partition actually took place, or that possession was ever handed over to the such as his admission that he was living appellant. The appellant’s own admissions such as his admission that he was living such as his admission that he was living appellant. The appellant’s own admissions ctricity separately from his father since 1966, that his ration card, voter card, electricity separately from his father since 1966, that his ration card, voter card, ele separately from his father since 1966, that his ration card, voter card, ele TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -13- - connection, and tax payments were all at his separate residence, and that no portion connection, and tax payments were all at his separate residence, and that no portion connection, and tax payments were all at his separate residence, and that no portion connection, and tax payments were all at his separate residence, and that no portion completely belie the plea of prior ouse was ever in his possession, completely belie the plea of prior ouse was ever in his possession, of the suit house was ever in his possession, partition or possession. partition or possession. 17. .PW16/A to The letters allegedly written by defendant No.1 (Ex.PW16/A to The letters allegedly written by defendant No.1 (Ex The letters allegedly written by defendant No.1 (Ex PW16/D) also do not assist the appellant. A careful reading of these letters shows PW16/D) also do not assist the appellant. A careful reading of these letters shows PW16/D) also do not assist the appellant. A careful reading of these letters shows PW16/D) also do not assist the appellant. A careful reading of these letters shows that they contain expressions of desire or intention to settle disputes within the that they contain expressions of desire or intention to settle disputes within the that they contain expressions of desire or intention to settle disputes within the that they contain expressions of desire or intention to settle disputes within the rd that family, not proof of any actual partition or transfer. None of the letters record that family, not proof of any actual partition or transfer. None of the letters reco family, not proof of any actual partition or transfer. None of the letters reco half the house was handed over to the appellant, half the house w none mention delivery of as handed over to the appellant, none mention delivery of none show that the appellant ever resided in the suit house. At best, possession, none show that the appellant ever resided in the suit house. At best, none show that the appellant ever resided in the suit house. At best, none show that the appellant ever resided in the suit house. At best, they show contemplation of some arrangement which never materialised, they show contemplation of some arrangement which never materialised, they show contemplation of some arrangement which never materialised, they show contemplation of some arrangement which never materialised, ed in light of the fact that defendant No.1 subsequently particularly when viewed in light of the fact that defendant No.1 subsequently ed in light of the fact that defendant No.1 subsequently particularly when view transferred the property to defendant No.2 through consent decrees. The letters transferred the property to defendant No.2 through consent decrees. The letters transferred the property to defendant No.2 through consent decrees. The letters transferred the property to defendant No.2 through consent decrees. The letters cannot override the admitted documentary position that the appellant never entered cannot override the admitted documentary position that the appellant never entered cannot override the admitted documentary position that the appellant never entered cannot override the admitted documentary position that the appellant never entered d any amount towards construction. into possession and never contributed any amount towards construction. into possession and never contribute 18. The allegation that the consent decrees (Ex.P142 & Ex.P143) were The allegation that the consent decrees (Ex.P142 & Ex.P143) were The allegation that the consent decrees (Ex.P142 & Ex.P143) were The allegation that the consent decrees (Ex.P142 & Ex.P143) were obtained fraudulently also stands demolished. The appellant has placed no obtained fraudulently also stands demolished. The appellant has placed no obtained fraudulently also stands demolished. The appellant has placed no obtained fraudulently also stands demolished. The appellant has placed no evidence whatsoever to prove fraud. The entire plea of fraud is premised on the evidence whatsoever to prove fraud. The entire plea of fraud is premised on t evidence whatsoever to prove fraud. The entire plea of fraud is premised on t evidence whatsoever to prove fraud. The entire plea of fraud is premised on t appellant not being impleaded in the earlier suit, appellant not bein however, when the appellant has g impleaded in the earlier suit, however, when the appellant has no legal right in the suit property, there was no requirement of impleading him. It no legal right in the suit property, there was no requirement of impleading him. It no legal right in the suit property, there was no requirement of impleading him. It no legal right in the suit property, there was no requirement of impleading him. It has also come on record that the plaintiff himself secured a consent decree (Ex.D2) has also come on record that the plaintiff himself secured a consent decree (Ex.D2) has also come on record that the plaintiff himself secured a consent decree (Ex.D2) has also come on record that the plaintiff himself secured a consent decree (Ex.D2) in his favour on the same date i.e.02.12.1989 and at that time, he never raised any his favour on the same date i.e.02.12.1989 and at that time, he never raised any and at that time, he never raised any objection that his own decree required registration or was otherwise illegal. Once objection that his own decree required registration or was otherwise illegal. Once objection that his own decree required registration or was otherwise illegal. Once objection that his own decree required registration or was otherwise illegal. Once the plaintiff accepted the validity of the same procedure in his own favour, he the plaintiff accepted the validity of the same procedure in his own favour, he the plaintiff accepted the validity of the same procedure in his own favour, he the plaintiff accepted the validity of the same procedure in his own favour, he ermitted to challenge the same process when it benefits defendant No.2. cannot be permitted to challenge the same process when it benefits defendant No.2. ermitted to challenge the same process when it benefits defendant No.2. ermitted to challenge the same process when it benefits defendant No.2. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -14- - Fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Nothing on record suggests Fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Nothing on record suggests Fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Nothing on record suggests Fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Nothing on record suggests that defendant No.1 acted under any coercion, deception, or misrepresentation that defendant No.1 acted under any coercion, deception, or misrepresentation that defendant No.1 acted under any coercion, deception, or misrepresentation that defendant No.1 acted under any coercion, deception, or misrepresentation ree. The lower appellate Court has also relied upon the while suffering the decree. The lower appellate Court has also relied upon the ree. The lower appellate Court has also relied upon the while suffering the dec including criminal complaints arising out of family disputes, to including criminal complaints arising out of family disputes plaintiff’s conduct, including criminal complaints arising out of family disputes plaintiff’s conduct conclude that the plea of fraud is an afterthought. conclude that the plea of fraud is an afterthought. conclude that the plea of fraud is an afterthought. 19. lier suit also The argument regarding admission in the plaint of the earlier suit also The argument regarding admission in the plaint of the ear The argument regarding admission in the plaint of the ear cannot advance the appellant’s case. Even if defendant No.2, in an earlier suit, cannot advance the appellant’s case. Even if defendant No.2, in an earlier suit, cannot advance the appellant’s case. Even if defendant No.2, in an earlier suit, cannot advance the appellant’s case. Even if defendant No.2, in an earlier suit, mentioned that the property was “joint”, such admission cannot, in law, create title mentioned that the property was “joint”, such admission cannot, in law, create title mentioned that the property was “joint”, such admission cannot, in law, create title mentioned that the property was “joint”, such admission cannot, in law, create title where none exists. Title in immovable property cannot arise from an admission where none exists. Title in immovable property cannot arise from an admissi where none exists. Title in immovable property cannot arise from an admissi where none exists. Title in immovable property cannot arise from an admissi contrary to the documents of allotment and construction. Further, the courts below contrary to the documents of allotment and construction. Further, the courts below contrary to the documents of allotment and construction. Further, the courts below contrary to the documents of allotment and construction. Further, the courts below rightly observed that such admissions are inadmissible for want of proof that the rightly observed that such admissions are inadmissible for want of proof that the rightly observed that such admissions are inadmissible for want of proof that the rightly observed that such admissions are inadmissible for want of proof that the suit itself was genuine or contested; moreover, the appellant was required to prove suit itself was genuine or contested; moreover, the appellant was required to prove suit itself was genuine or contested; moreover, the appellant was required to prove suit itself was genuine or contested; moreover, the appellant was required to prove independent title, not rely on a stray statement. his independent title, not rely on a stray statement. independent title, not rely on a stray statement. 20. Lastly, the finding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit Lastly, the finding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit Lastly, the finding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit Lastly, the finding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit is unassailable. The plaintiff never pleaded property on the date of the suit is unassailable. The plaintiff never pleaded property on the date of the suit is unassailable. The plaintiff never pleaded property on the date of the suit is unassailable. The plaintiff never pleaded examination ver sought relief of possession and admitted in cross-examination ver sought relief of possession and possession; never sought relief of possession and he Local Commissioner’s report also supports this. that he had no possession. The Local Commissioner’s report also supports this. he Local Commissioner’s report also supports this. that he had no possession Thus, the suit for declaration simpliciter was barred by the proviso to Section 34 of Thus, the suit for declaration simpliciter was barred by the proviso to Section 34 of Thus, the suit for declaration simpliciter was barred by the proviso to Section 34 of Thus, the suit for declaration simpliciter was barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, and rightly dismissed. the Specific Relief Act, and rightly dismissed. Conclusion 21.
Decision
In view of the above exhaustive consideration of every point argued In view of the above exhaustive consideration of every point argued In view of the above exhaustive consideration of every point argued In view of the above exhaustive consideration of every point argued by the appellant, this Court finds that the findings recorded by both courts below by the appellant, this Court finds that the findings recorded by both courts below by the appellant, this Court finds that the findings recorded by both courts below by the appellant, this Court finds that the findings recorded by both courts below are supported by evidence and law, are neither perverse nor illegal, and call for no are supported by evidence and law, are neither perverse nor illegal, and call for no are supported by evidence and law, are neither perverse nor illegal, and call for no are supported by evidence and law, are neither perverse nor illegal, and call for no TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2098-2001 2001 (O&M) -15- - e appellant has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, interference.The appellant has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, e appellant has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, e appellant has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, misreading of evidence, or perversity. A ccordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. ng of evidence, or perversity. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. ccordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 22. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. December 03, 2025 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking : Yes/No. : Yes/No. Whether reportable Whether reportable (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document