AT CHANDIGARH v. Narain Singh & Ors.

Present: Shri Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the appellants. ....

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 21.7.2005 and 29.4.2009 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge,Narnaul (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court'). Plaintiff-Chhagan Singh (since deceased and now represented by legal representatives) had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendants-Ranbir Singh, Dilawar Singh, Prem Singh (present appellants) and Umed Singh (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives, who are arrayed as proforma respondent nos. 9 to 12 R.S.A.No.3338 of 2009 (O&M) -2- .... herein) from interfering with his possession and that of proforma defendant nos. 5 & 6 – Inder Singh & Ram Kumar (impleaded as contesting respondent nos. 7 & 8 herein) over the property located in the abadi of village Kanti shown in red colour in the site plan and fully described in the headnote of the plaint (hereinafter called as `the suit property'). It was pleaded that the suit property was owned by the plaintiff and proforma defendant nos. 5 & 6; that it was given Ahata No.59, Ghar No.115 in the settlement record of 1967 BK; that Mangal son of Kishna and Sheo Rattan son of Mohan Singh had equal shares in it; that the suit property was auctioned in 1967 BK and was purchased by Gopal Singh; that the plaintiff was son of Gopal Singh, whereas proforma defendant nos. 5 & 6 were his grandsons; that the contesting defendants were interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendant nos. 5 & 6; that they were requested several times not to do so, but to no effect. Upon notice, the contesting defendants had appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit. They had denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants over the suit property and claimed that it was ancestral and coparcenary property of the plaintiff and the defendants. It was pleaded that the plaintiff and Umrao Singh, father of proforma defendant nos. 5 & 6 had 1/4th share in the suit property, whereas the contesting defendants were owners thereof to the extent of 3/4th share It was further pleaded that in a mutual family settlement, the plaintiff and his brother-Umrao Singh had given their 1/4th share in the suit property to Mool Singh son of Chander Bhan Singh in 2013 R.S.A.No.3338 of 2009 (O&M) -3- .... BK and thereafter they had no right or title therein. It was denied that the suit property was bearing Ahata No.59 and Ghar No.115 or was a part of that property. It was also denied that Gopal Singh had purchased this property in 1976 BK. All other averments of the plaintiff were refuted. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the framing of as many as nine issues upon which they led their respective evidence. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal filed by the contesting defendants was dismissed by the first appellate Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the findings recorded in the impugned judgments are perverse since the Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the defendants were in possession of the suit property from the time of their forefathers. He referred to the bahi entry to substantiate this plea and contended that this entry clearly revealed the possession of the defendants. I have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid contention and have perused the impugned judgments. The defendants had pleaded that the suit property was ancestral and coparcenary and they had inherited the same from their forefathers and were in possession thereof. However, a reading of the impugned judgments in which the pleadings of the parties have been referred, clearly do not reveal that such a plea was raised by the defendants except for making a fleeting reference to the property being ancestral. No details regarding this R.S.A.No.3338 of 2009 (O&M) -4- .... aspect had been given nor any evidence was produced to show that the plaintiff and the contesting defendants were related to each other. It was also not proved as how they were related to their common ancestor. The bahi entry, Exhibit DW4/B, on which much emphasis was laid by the counsel for the appellants, also did not show as to which property it relates to. It is totally vague and in any eventuality, the same was never proved in accordance with law. No evidence was brought forward in order to substantiate the plea that pursuant to a family settlement, the plaintiff and father of proforma defendants had given their share in the suit property to Mool Singh, father of the contesting defendants. No such family settlement was proved. In short, I am of the view that this is a case of complete lack of evidence which could have supported the case of the appellants. The plaintiff, on the other hand, had managed to show that the suit property had been purchased by Gopal Singh, his father, and he was put in possession thereof in 1976 BK. In any case, these are the questions of fact which have been determined by the Courts below and no substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen for determination by this Court. The appeal is, accordingly, held to be without any merit and is dismissed. All pending civil miscellaneous applications are also dismissed in view of the above. March 30,2010 “SCM” ( Mahesh Grover ) Judge