Davinder Singh & Anr v. Nirmal Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3445-2018 (O&M) Reserved on : 31.01.2025 Pronounced on : 06.02.2025 Davinder Singh & Anr. ....Appellants VERSUS Nirmal Singh (since deceased) through LRs & Ors. ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Kishan Garg, Advocate for Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the appellants. ALKA SARIN, J. 1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
Legal Reasoning
plaintiff-appellants challenging the judgments and decrees dated 09.01.2015 and 17.04.2017 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively, dismissing the suit filed by them. 2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellants herein filed a suit for declaration and injunction. According to the plaintiff-appellants their great grandfather (Sardara Singh) was owner in possession of the suit property and that after his death the suit property was inherited by their grandfather (Gurbax Singh) and thereafter it fell to their father – defendant No.1 (Nirmal Singh) who was owner and in possession of the suit property. As per the plaintiff-appellants the suit property was coparcenary Hindu joint family property and both the plaintiff-appellants and the defendants were owners in possession according to their shares as Ankur Goyal 2025.02.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3445-2018 (O&M) -2- coparceners. It was alleged by the plaintiff-appellants that their father – defendant No.1 (Nirmal Singh), without any legal necessity and without consideration, had transferred part of the suit property in favour of defendant No.2 vide transfer deeds dated 30.11.2007 and thereupon mutations had also been entered in favour of defendant No.2. It was alleged that the transfer deeds were illegal, wrong, null and void and forged and fabricated documents and without consideration. The plaintiff-appellants have a right by birth in the suit property as the same is coparcenary Hindu joint family property. Hence, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was the stand taken that the suit property was not coparcenary Hindu joint family property but was rather the self acquired property of defendant No.1 (Nirmal Singh). It was averred that defendant No.1 (Nirmal Singh) had acquired some part of the suit property from his father (Gurbax Singh) vide a registered Will dated 02.07.1965. Out of the land acquired by Defendant No.1 (Nirmal Singh) from his father (Gurbax Singh) he transferred land measuring 28 bighas 3 biswas in favour of his sons in equal shares vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.1990. He also purchased land in the names of his sons (Avtar Singh, Jagtar Singh, Swaran Singh) and himself in equal shares vide different sale deeds. As the suit property in dispute was the self acquired property of defendant No.1 (Nirmal Singh) and he had validly transferred it in favour of defendant No.2, the defendant No.2 was owner and in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff-appellants had no right, title or concern with it. In the replication the averments made in the written Ankur Goyal 2025.02.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3445-2018 (O&M) -3- statement of defendant No.1 to 4 were denied and the ones taken in the plaint were reiterated. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration, that they are owner in possession in equal shares in the property in dispute ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that the transfer of ownership deeds no.805 and 806 dated 30.11.2007 and the mutations sanctioned on the basis thereof are illegal, wrong, null and void and are liable to be set aside ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 4. Whether the property in dispute is ancestral and joint Hindu Family property of the plaintiffs and defendants ? OPP 5. Whether the property in dispute is self acquired property of the defendant no.1 ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed material facts from the court ? OPD Ankur Goyal 2025.02.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3445-2018 (O&M) -4- 8. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 9. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 10. Whether the suit is barred under section 34 of Specific Relief Act ? OPD 11. Relief. 4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.2015 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellants which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.2017. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellants. 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that both the Courts have erred in dismissing his suit. It is urged that the suit property was coparcenary Hindu joint family property in which the plaintiff- appellants have a share and defendant No.1 (Nirmal Singh) had no right or authority to transfer parts thereof in favour of defendant No.2. 6. 7. Heard. In the present case the plaintiff-appellants had come to Court with the plea that the suit property was coparcenary Hindu joint family property. So far as ancestral nature of the suit property is concerned, both the Courts below concurrently held that there is no satisfactory evidence on record to establish the fact. There is no evidence on record to establish that the suit property devolved upon defendant No.1 (Nirmal Singh) from last four generations. The ancestral nature of property can only be established by Ankur Goyal 2025.02.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3445-2018 (O&M) -5- independent proof including the revenue records/jamabandis. It has to be proved beyond doubt that the property was undivided property of a Hindu family of four generations. There is no such evidence on record. The revenue record produced by the plaintiff-appellants is of one generation alone. Even the Will left by Gurbux Singh in favour of defendant No.1 (Nirmal Singh) was never challenged by the plaintiff-appellants. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 8. In view of the above, no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case which requires determination by this Court. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is
Decision
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 06.02.2025 Ankur (ALKA SARIN) JUDGE NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No Ankur Goyal 2025.02.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document