24.02.2025 Mehar Cha ar Chand v. Ram Kali
Case Details
1 &M) CR-5226-2024 (O&M [134] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CR-5226- Date of De -2024 (O&M) of Decision : 24.02.2025 Mehar Cha ar Chand …Petitioner versus Ram Kali ( through LR Kali (since deceased) gh LRs and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Harsh Mehla, Advocate fo Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for for the petitioner. for the respondents. *** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] The instant revision petition tition is directed against Order date r dated 25.05.2023 .2023 passed by the learned Civil J ivil Judge (Senior Division), Yamun Yamuna Nagar at Ja at Jagadhri, disposing off applicatio
Legal Reasoning
lication filed by plaintiff-petitioner fo oner for framing of ing of additional issues. [2] Suit was filed by the plaintiff laintiffs, claiming that they along wi ng with defendant N dant Nos.9 to 23 are Class II heirs o eirs of Rati Ram being brothers’ son sons, sisters’ son sons, brothers’ daughters and sister sisters’ daughters. They being entitle entitled to succeed cceed to the estate left by Rati R ati Ram are entitled to a decree o cree of declaration on to the effect that they are owne owners in possession in equal share share of land left by left by Rati Ram. Further challenge llenge was to mutation as well as sa l as sale deeds execu s executed by defendant No.1 and furth d further sale deeds. [3] Ram. Rati Ram. [4] Defendant No.1 contested suit ed suit claiming herself to be widow o idow of Learned Trial Court vide o vide order dated 29.01.2020 fram framed following i wing issues:- RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.12 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “1. Whether the plaintiff is en prayed for? OPP. is entitled to a decree of declaration, ion, as 2 2. Whether the plaintiff has file the present suit? OPD has no locus standi or cause of action PD. tion to 3. Whether the suit is not ma t maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the Civil Court try the present suit? OPD urt has no jurisdiction to entertain an PD. in and 5. Whether the plaintiff ha facts from the court? OPD f has concealed the true and materi OPD. aterial 6. Whether the plaintiff is e by his own acts and condu is estopped from filing the present su onduct? OPD. nt suit 7. Relief. ” Plaintiffs filed present applica pplication under Order 14 Rule 5 CP 5 CPC &M) CR-5226-2024 (O&M [5] seeking fra ing framing of additional issues. In s. In the application, following thre g three issues were s were proposed to be framed:- “1) Whether the plaintiffs and s and defendants No.9 to 23 are entitl ntitled to succeed the suit land be nd being natural heirs of Rati Ram and and if so then what will be the sh the share of the plaintiffs and defendan ndants No.9 to 23? OPP. 2) Whether there is a valid alid divorce between Ram Kali and h nd her husband 19797 Prem Cha Chand on 20.09.1979? OPD1 3) Whether Ram Kali enter ntered into Kareva marriage with Ra h Rati Ram? OPD1. ” [6] The aforesaid application has
Decision
n has been disposed off by the learne learned Trial Court Court, framing following additional is onal issues:- “1-A Whether the plaintiffs are permanent injunction, re from alienating, transfe charge over the suit land head note of the plaint) possession of plaintiff ov marla (as detailed in the for? OPP. s are entitled to a consequential relief , restraining the defendants no.1 to nsferring or otherwise creating a land (as detailed and described in t aint) and also from interfering in t ff over the land measuring 9 kanal the head note of the plaint), as pray elief of 1 to 8 g any in the in the anal 3 prayed 6-A Whether the plaint is liab s liable to be rejected under Order 7 Ru 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD. 6-B Whether the present suit h purposes of court fee and suit has not been properly valued for t and jurisdiction? OPD. for the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.12 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 &M) CR-5226-2024 (O&M [7] 6-C Whether the suit of plai Order 7 Rule 1 (j) CPC? O plaintiff is liable to be rejected und C? OPD. ” under Counsel for the petitioner has er has drawn attention of this Court Court to the pleadin leadings raised by the parties and subm d submits that the issue in the lis is qu qua entitlement lement to succeed estate of Rati Ram. Ram. Plaintiffs claimed themselves elves to be Class II lass II heirs of late Rati Ram being ch ing children of his brothers and sister sisters. Defendant ndant No.1-Ram Kali in her written ritten statement claims to be widow idow of Rati Ram, Ram, alleging that she performed kar kareva marriage with Rati Ram aft am after getting div ng divorce from Prem Chand. Thus, Thus, the fate of the lis hinges on th on the issue wheth whether Ram Kali is widow of Rati R Rati Ram. [8] Per contra, Mr. Mamli, coun counsel for the respondents, submi submits that plaintif plaintiffs have not challenged the mar e marriage of Ram Kali with Rati Ra ati Ram and there is here is no pleading of any divorce etc. ce etc. Once, there is no such pleadin leading, no issue is sue is required to be framed qua rel relationship between Ram Kali an ali and Ram. Rati Ram. [9] I have heard counsel for the or the parties and have carefully gon lly gone through the gh the records of the case. [10] This Court finds that the learn e learned Trial Court erred in ignorin ignoring the vital ple ital pleadings. Plaintiffs in para Nos.9 Nos.9 & 10 in the plaint raised specif specific plea to the to the following effect:- “9. That Ram Kali was not w ot wife of Rati Ram as no marriage ev e ever em. took place between them. 10. That in fact Ram Kali wa i was wife of Prem Chand son of Garib aribu and Ram Kali had seve seven children from that wedlock wi k with Prem Chand who are are Rinku, Malkeet and Roshan an as defendants no.9 to 11 11 and smt. Veena Devi, Sulochn ochna, Tarawati and Mamta De Devi as defendants no.12 to 15 in th in this suit. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.12 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 &M) CR-5226-2024 (O&M 11. That marriage between P en Prem Chand and Ram Kali was nev s never dissolved and Ram Kali ali being wife of Prem Chand had n ad no relation with Rati Ram. 12. That besides this Rati Ram Ram was also married with Kamla De a Devi daughter of Kalu Ram of of village Chhappar and that marria rriage was never dissolved as pe s per provisions of Hindu Marriage Ac e Act, 1955. So there could not not be any marriage between Rati Ra ti Ram and Ram Kali defendant ant no.1 during subsistence of marria rriage between Rati Ram and Ka d Kamla Devi. 13. That fact is that there wa e was no relationship between Rati Ra ti Ram and Ram Kali as husband sband and wife and they never cohabit abited as such and Rati Ram e m expired without leaving behind a d any natural heir as Kamla D la Devi had also entered into secon second marriage without any divo divorce from Rati Ram. So she had al d also lost right in the estate of e of Rati Ram after entering into secon second marriage with a resident o ent of Kallar Majra. ” [11] Defendant No.1-Ram Kali in ali in her written statement responde sponded thereto as u to as under:- “9. 10. That Para no.9 of the pla e plaint is wrong and hence denied. It d. It is only Ram Kali being the w the widow of Rati Ram is the sole own owner of the property and prior rior to sale she was owner in possessio session of the same. That Para no.10 of the p he plaint is wrong and hence denied. A ed. As stated above previously sly Ram Kali was married with Pre Prem Chand and out of wedloc dlock of Ram Kali and Prem Chand, t nd, the defendant no.10,11, 13 to to 15 being sons and daughters we s were born out and then Prem C em Chand entered into Kareva marria rriage with Prema and defendan dant no.9 and 12 were born out of t of the wedlock of Prem Chand a nd and Premi and Ram Kali entered in ed into kareva marriage with Ra h Rati Ram as such facts stated in th in this Para are totally wrong an g and hence denied. 11. That Para no.11 of the pl e plaint is wrong and hence denied. T . The marriage between Prem rem Chand and Ram kali has be been dissolved by divorce as p as per custom and after divorce, Pre Prem RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.12 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chand has entered into a Devi. to a Karewa marriage with Premi Devi 5 12. That Para no.12 of the p the plaint is admitted to the extent th nt that Rati Ram was previously usly married with Kamla Devi. Rest est of the Para is wrong and and hence denied. The marriage wi e with Kamla Devi was dissolved solved by divorce as per custom. Howev wever for the sake of argument ents if this plea is taken to be corre orrect that marriage between een Rati Ram and Kamla was n s not dissolved, in that case a se also the present suit is liable to to be dismissed on this score al e alone. 13. That Para no.13 of the the plaint is wrong and hence denie enied. Ram Kali was legally wed wedded wife of Rati Ram and Rati Ra ti Ram and Ram Kali defenda ndant no.1 were residing jointly tly as husband and wife for last r last many years. The allegations an s and averments made in this this Para are wrong, illegal, false an se and frivolous. ” In view thereof, this Court fin urt finds that the impugned order date er dated &M) CR-5226-2024 (O&M [12] 29.01.2020 .2020 needs to be modified. [13] Keeping in view the nature ature of controversy, impugned ord d order dated 29.01 29.01.2020 is modified by framing a ing an additional issue, which reads a reads as under:- [14] “Whether Ram Kali effected K ed Kareva marriage with Rati Ram after getting divorce orce from Prem Chand?”OPD With the aforesaid modificatio ification, the present revision petition tition is disposed o sed off. [15] All pending miscellaneous neous application(s), if any, stand stands disposed of ed off. .2025 24.02.2025 ‘R. Sharma' RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.12 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No