1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT v. RSA-564-2020
Case Details
Page 1 of 8 8 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 Satish @ Satis atish Kumar Hukam Singh ngh & Others Vs. RSA-564-2020(O&M) Date of decision: 25.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Nitin Sansanwal, Advoc Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, A for the appellant. dvocate h, Advocate Mr. Prashant Singh Chauha uhan, Advocate o 3. for respondents No.1 to 3. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** The plaintiff is in second a nt nd appeal against the concurrent judgments and s and decrees of the learned Courts led urts below whereby the suit filed by the plaint laintiff for declaration with conse nt nsequential relief of permanent injunction, has , has been dismissed by both the Co e Courts below. 2. The parties shall hereinaft eir inafter be referred to as per their status before t ore the learned trial Court i.e. the a nd he appellant as the “plaintiff” and the responden
Legal Reasoning
dents as the “defendants”. 3. Brief facts of the case a he e are that the plaintiff and the defendants/re s/respondents herein, are brothers nd hers and sisters all being sons and daughters of of Phool Singh. The plaintiff had ing ad filed the present suit alleging SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) that he along w ng with pro-forma defendants No.5 Page 2 of 8 8 (cid:1) he No.5 to 8 are the co-owners to the extent of 1/9 1/9th share each in the agricultural nal ural land total measuring 16 kanal (hereinafter re er referred to as the suit land) being gh eing the legal heirs of Phool Singh and coparcen ceners of Hindu Joint Family. It was rty was pleaded that the suit property is ancestral in al in nature and therefore, the parti are parties have equal right and share in the suit pro property. However, defendants No. lse No.1 to 4 had got executed a false and fraudule ulent Release Deed (Ex.P2) bea d bearing Vasika No.2957 dated 06.10.2008 in in their favour from Phool Singh. aid ngh. It was pleaded that the said Release Deed eed was got executed by the defe a defendants No.1 to 4 only with a view to grab t rab the share of the plaintiff and th As d the pro-forma respondents. As such, the sai said Release Deed was liable to uit e to be cancelled; and the suit property bein eing ancestral in nature was to de he o devolve upon the parties to the suit in equal ual share. As such, a declaration w at on was sought to the effect that Release Deed eed No.2957 dated 06.10.2008 is il ble is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside aside and that the plaintiffs along w nts ng with the pro-forma defendants are co-owners ners to the extent of 1/9th share eac each in the agricultural land. 4. Vide judgment and dec he decree dated 15.10.2016, the learned Civil J ivil Judge, Junior Division, Sohna h he na had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The he appeal filed by the plaintiff w ed iff was dismissed by the learned Additional Di l District Judge, Gurugram vide ed de judgment and decree dated 18.09.2019the hereby affirming the findings of t ce, of the learned trial Court. Hence, present secon cond appeal by the plaintiff. SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 5. Learned counsel for the p Page 3 of 8 8 (cid:1) at he plaintiff inter alia submits that the learned Co d Courts below were in patent erro as error in non-suiting the plaintiff as it is an admitt mitted fact on record that the suit l he uit land is ancestral in nature. The Suit land is pro s proven to be ancestral from the e rd he excerpts of the revenue record (Ex.P1 and Ex. Ex.P2) as also from the evidence of go. ce of Patwari and retired Kanungo. As such, all th ll the parties to the suit have a rig ing a right in the suit property being legal heirs of s of Phool Singh. Thus, Release en ase Deed could not have been executed by P by Phool Singh in favour of defend he fendants No.1 to 4 excluding the other parties ties as they were also members o is rs of the Hindu Joint Family. It is further conten ntended that the impugned Release he ease Deed was not neither for the welfare and be d benefit of the joint family nor wa As r was there any legal necessity. As such, Release ase Deed could not have been ex he n executed thereby defeating the rights of the p he plaintiff and the pro-forma defe nt defendants. Moreover, executant Phool Singh w gh was about 90 years old at the se the time of execution of Release Deed and was was not in good mental condition. ot ion. However, these facts have not been properly perly considered by the learned co gly d courts below. It is accordingly prayed that th t the impugned judgments and dec decrees be set aside. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the res to e respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 opposes the the prayer made on behalf of the no the appellant and submits that no doubt the sui suit land was ancestral in nature, on ure, however, it is proven fact on record that in at in an oral settlement, some la ad e land of the suit property had already been een given to the plaintiff. Moreove sly over, Phool Singh had previously SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) executed a Sal a Sale Deed No.2199 dated 11.01.20 Page 4 of 8 8 (cid:1) nd 1.2002 in respect of 1 killa of land in favour of th of the plaintiff. It is submitted that at hat it was in this background that the learned C d Courts below found that the pla his plaintiff had already received his share of the the suit property by way of the ed the above said Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002; a 2; and therefore, it was in order to nts er to compensate the defendants No.1 to 4 that that the Release Deed in question w in on was executed by Phool Singh in favour of the the remaining members of the he the Hindu Joint Family i.e. the defendants No s No.1 to 4. It is further submitte s a itted that the Release Deed is a registered doc document which was executed an of d and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, trar, Gurugram in the presence of w gal of witnesses. As such, it is a legal document; an and it has also been proven in ac he n accordance with law before the learned Courts ourts below. It is accordingly prayed nts yed that the impugned judgments and decrees s es suffer from no error and the p be e present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal, learned counse at unsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant No No.4 as DW5, defendant No.6 as as 6 as DW3 and defendant No.7 as DW4 have spe specifically testified that the Releas as lease Deed dated 06.10.2008 was executed in fa in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 he o 4 without their knowledge. The said defendan dants had further testified that Sal as t Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 was rightly execute cuted in favour of the plaintiff as Ph for s Phool Singh had taken a loan for the marriage age of the defendants No.6 and 7 he d 7 which loan was repaid by the SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) plaintiff. It is c is contended that accordingly the p Page 5 of 8 8 (cid:1) uit the plaintiff has a share in the suit property. 8. 9. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned couns he ounsel for the parties, perused the case file in gr n great detail and given by though val ughtful consideration to the rival submissions a ns advanced on behalf of both the p he parties. 10. I find no merit in the subm he ubmissions made on behalf of the appellant/plai plaintiff. It is not disputed on rec is record that the suit property is ancestral in n in nature. It is also not disputed th ed ed that Sale Deed No.2199 dated 11.01.2002 wa was executed by Phool Singh in f of in favour of plaintiff for 1 killa of land. This fac fact was not disclosed by the pl as e plaintiff in the plaint; and was revealed by t by the defendants No.1 to 3 in th by in the written statement filed by them. No repl replication was filed by the plaintif ion intiff to rebut the said contention of the defend fendants. Even no evidence in reb iff. rebuttal was led by the plaintiff. Thus, the fact factum of the execution of the s en he said Sale Deed has not been denied by the the plaintiff orthe defendants no.4 o.4 to 8. 11. It has been contended by urt by the plaintiff before this Court that the said aid Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 wa of was rightly executed in favour of the plaintiff as iff as Phool Singh had taken a loan f rs/ an for the marriage of the sisters/ defendants No s No.6 and 7 which loan was repaid rd, paid by the plaintiff. In this regard, learned couns unsel for the plaintiff has referred t nts ed to the testimony of defendants No.4, 6 and 7 nd 7, who have deposed to this ef no is effect. However, admittedly, no SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) evidence has has been led by the plaintiff to Page 6 of 8 8 (cid:1) ald to prove this fact. Only a bald assertion has b has been made without any evidenc his dence in support. Moreover, if this was so, why w hy were these facts not disclosed by t is d by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is also to be not noted that Omwati wife of decease of eased Phool Singh/and mother of the parties h es herein, in her evidence as D vit as DW2 and vide her affidavit (Ex.DW2/A) ha ) has supported the version as give given by defendants No.1 to 3. 12. Further, to the contrary, it nt ry, it was the clear and consistent case of defen fendants No.1 to 3 that the plaint aid laintiff had got executed the said Sale Deed date dated 11.01.2002 in his favour by p . by playing fraud upon Phool Singh. Consequential ntially, Phool Singh had execute ed cuted the Release Deed dated 06.10.2008 in 8 in order to compensate/give to eir e to defendants No.1 to 4 their rightful share are in the Hindu Joint Family pr he y property. Admittedly, vide the Release Deed, eed, the defendants No.1 to 4 have nd ave also been given 1 killa of land each. Thus, cl clearly, the Release Deed was ex he s executed by Phool Singh for the welfare of the f the family and to compensate th he e the remaining members of the joint family. ly. Phool Singh being Karta of the lly the Hindu Joint Family was fully competent to t to execute the Release Deed esp ed especially given the afore-noted facts and circu circumstances of the case and in t he in the larger interest and for the welfare of the the joint family. DW3 in his evidenc hat dence has categorically stated that plaintiff had ad got executed the Sale Deed ); ed dated 11.01.2002 (Mark X); whereafter th r the impugned Release Deed was on was executed by Phool Singh on 06.10.2008 me 8 merely to ensure that defendants of ants No.1 to 4 are not deprived of SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) their rightful o ful ownership over the ancestral lan Page 7 of 8 8 (cid:1) er l land. Defendant No.3 has further deposed that R hat Release Deed was executed with ing with the consent of the remaining members of t of the family. Thus, it cannot be sa se e said that the impugned release deed suffers fr rs from any illegality. 13. Relevant findings of the l in he ld. trial Court as contained in Para 26 of the the judgment and decree dated 15. 15.10.2016 are as follows:- “26. Now, the onus shifts on the ow the defendant No. 1 to 3 to show that the impugned release de gal e deed was executed for legal necessity as well as welfare of t se, of the joint family. In this case, defendant No. 3 when appeared ted red in the witness box has stated in unequivocal terms that plaint on laintiff by playing a fraud upon deceased Phool Singh got execute ted ecuted a sale deed no. 2199 dated 11.01.2002 and to compensat ing nsate the share of remaining members of the joint family relea the release deed was executed in the favour of defendant No. 1 to 4 w fa ing 4 with the consent of remaining members of the family. Whereas ve reas, defendant No. 4, 6& 7 have negated the fact of the alleged c ers ed consent of all the coparceners while executing impugned Releas se, elease deed. In the present case, the execution of sale deed dated of ated 10.01.2002 in the favour of the plaintiff has not been disput uit isputed by the parties to the suit and it is the stand of the defe the defendants no. 1 to 3 that the impugned release deed was e the as executed to compensate the remaining members of the joint tly joint family and thus was rightly executed. Since, the question of ted n of legality of sale deed dated 10.01.2002 is not under considera om sideration of present suit but from the testimonies of the witnesses tiff esses, it is revealed that plaintiff fraudulently got executed sale de fra nd le deed of 1killa in his favour and SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) to compensate the remaining me Page 8 of 8 8 (cid:1) nd g members of the joint family and thus was done for the welfare of aw re of the family. It is a settled law that a Karta can transfer or aliena lienate the land under 3 cases: i). Apatkale i.e. in times of distress tress. ii). Kutubarthe i.e. for the sake of f e of family. iii) Dharamarthe i.e. for the p ble e performance of indispensable duties. In the present case, the release the lease deed was executed for the welfare of the family at large as 02 e as a sale deed dated 10.01.2002 in the favour of the plaintiff an ral iff and that too of the ancestral property was made in the favour gh vour of the plaintiff by Phool Singh (now deceased) and to compens ers pensate the remaining members of the joint family, the impugned ted ned Release deed no. 2957 dated 06.10.2008 was executed. Hence d ence, in view of the above said discussion the defendant No. 1to the to 3 have been able to rebut the stand of plaintiff and thus the is in he issue is decided accordingly in the favour of defendants and aga against the plaintiff.” 14. I am in complete agree aid greement with the above said reasoning of t of the learned Trial Court. I find n de d no ground whatsoever is made out to interfer rfere in the concurrent findings of he s of the learned Courts below. The present appea peal is accordingly, dismissed. 15. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 25.04.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)