IN THE HI 128 Hansraj Batra Ashwani Batra CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, CM-4024-C-20 condonation o which is supp exceptions an condoned. MAIN CASE judgments and appellant for property as injunction res change over t below. E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA atra Vs. atra & Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Proxy counsel for Ms.Rama Advocate for the appellant *** PTA, J. 2023 This is an application u on of delay of 104 days in re-filing After going through the supported by affidavit, the same s and delay of 104 days in re The appellant/plaintiff has s and decrees of the Courts below w for declaration that he is owner as detailed in the plaint, along restraining the defendants from er the suit property, has been dis D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1048-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.02.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA amandeep Kaur, llant. n under Section 151 CPC for ng the appeal. the contents of the application, me is allowed subject to all just re-filing the present appeal is has challenged the concurrent ow whereby the suit filed by the ner in possession of the suit ong with relief of permanent rom alienating or creating any n dismissed by both the Courts 6 for on, ust is SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2. for declaration situated at sho Ward No.7, Ra cum-writing d Rs.2,51,000/- that sale dee consequential from alienatin 3. the plaintiff st proprietor of as partners in the entire inv plaintiff. The p and defendan year 2002 the entire loan wa got the said s the said shop suit property income of plai defendant No Brief facts of the case are ation to the effect that he is owner t shopping Complex, Panipat and sh 7, Railway Road Panipat (suit prope ng dated 03.11.2012; and is entit - along with interest from defen deeds No.703&704 dated 26.04.1 ntial relief of permanent injunction ating suit property. The case as set out by the iff started business of furniture in th of the firm. Then he joined defenda s in the firm without any investmen investment in the partnership b he plaintiff was partner in the firm dants No.1 and defendant No.2 to the firm purchased SCO-97 by ta n was discharged by the plaintiff. H id shop purchased in his own nam hop no. 97 had been purchased in t rty is constituted of SCO-97 which plaintiff whereas sale deed have be No.1 fraudulently. It is pleaded th are that the plaintiff filed a suit ner in possession of SCO No.97 d shop No.1126-1127 situated at roperty) on basis of agreement- entitled to recover payment of fendant; and to the declaration .04.1999 are illegal; along with tion restraining the respondents the plaintiff in the plaint is that the year 1962 and he was sole endant No.1 and defendant No.2 ment by the said defendants and ip business was made by the firm to the extent of 40% share 2 to extent of 30% each. In the y taking loan of Rs.5 lakh. The ff. However, the defendant No.1 name and told the plaintiff that in the name of the plaintiff. The hich have been purchased from e been got executed in favour of d that ultimately to resolve the 6 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document family dispute parties on 03. SCO No.97 an defendants fa Family Settlem alienate suit p 4. no.2 who resis 5. were framed v fo jo 6. adduced by th trial Court vid appeal against dismissed by decree dated 2 pute, a family settlement-cum-agre 03.11.2012 vide which defendant 7 and a sum of Rs.2,51,000/- to failed to comply with the terms tlement which was duly signed by t uit property. Hence, present suit. Upon notice, written state resisted the suit on several grounds. On the basis of pleadings o ed vide order dated 29.05.2015:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitle prayed?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit of plaintiff is form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no lo suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Relief.” Upon considering the pl y the parties, the suit of the plain t vide judgment and decree dated ainst the said judgment and decree by the ld. Additional District Judge ted 29.10.2022. Hence, present seco agreement took place between ants No.1 and 2 agreed to give to the plaintiff. However, the rms and conditions of the said by them, and in fact, wanted to tatement was filed by defendant nds. ngs of the parties, following issues ntitled to decree for declaration as d to relief of permanent injunction tiff is not maintainable in present no locus standi to file the present iff is bad for mis-joinder and non- OPD pleadings, and the evidence laintiff was dismissed by the ld. ated 20.12.2017. The plaintiff’s cree dated 20.12.2017 was also dge, Panipat vide judgment and second appeal. 6 es as ion ent ent - SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. the plaintiff is settlement-cu had agreed Rs.2,51,000/- firm of the p however, the d dated 03.11.2 Deed. It is su prove the Fam lower Appellat Family Settlem Settlement ye prayed that th the suit filed b 8. 9. perused the ca 10. pains to impre ‘Family Settle writing dated between the Learned counsel for the ap iff is owner in possession of the suit cum-writing dated 03.11.2012 as ed to execute and register the - in lieu of the claim left by the e plaintiff and the defendants. Le the defendants have failed to honou 11.2012; and the defendant No.1 s submitted that the plaintiff had Family Settlement before the Cour ellate Court has accepted that the w ttlement. Thus, though the Plain t yet the suit of the plaintiff has bee at the judgments passed by the Co ed by the appellant be decreed with No other argument is made I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. Learned counsel for the press upon this Court that the wri ettlement’ entered into between ated 3.11.2012 (Ex.PW2/A) was fo the parties and not a ‘Family Set e appellant/plaintiff submits that suit properties on basis of family 2 as per which the defendants the Sale Deed; and to pay the plaintiff in the partnership . Learned counsel submits that onour the said family settlement has failed to execute the Sale ad led voluminous evidence to ourts below. In fact the learned the writing dated 03.11.2012 is a laintiff has proved the Family been dismissed. It is accordingly e Courts below be set aside and with costs. ade on behalf of the appellant. counsel for the appellant and the plaintiff has been at great writing dated 03.11.2012 was a een the parties. However, the s found to be an ‘Agreement’ Settlement’. Thus, the remedy 6 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document available with not a suit for be a Family registered bec either situatio registered und to. 11. have failed to dated 03.11.2 specifically de have stated in performed his Courts below conditions of The family se and condition parties did no writing and wa three settleme the plaintiff agreement no with the plaintiff was to file a suit f for declaration. Further, even if the ily Settlement then also it is co because it contains recitation of ation, the said document dated 3.1 under Section 17 of the Registratio It is the grievance of the p d to honour and/or perform their p .11.2012. To the contrary, though y denied the execution of alleged d in their cross-examination that it his part of said agreement. On ev low that both parties had failed of the said Agreement, reducing settlement/agreement (Ex.PW2/A tions were to be complied with by p d not act upon the settlement ev d was never complied with. In fact, lements had been entered into be iff cannot be declared as owner t nor he is entitled to recover any am uit for specific performance and f the document is considered to is compulsorily required to be of family settlement. Thus, in d 3.11.2012, was required to be ation Act for it to be given effect the plaintiff that the defendants eir part of the Family Settlement ugh the defendants have not ed writing/agreement yet, they it was the plaintiff who has not n evidence it was found by the iled to honour the terms and ing it to a mere piece of paper. 2/A) reveals that all the terms by parties up to 05.12.2012 but t ever. It remained a piece of act, it was found that as many as o between the parties. As such, ner of SCO-97 on basis of this y amount as agreed. 6 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. SCO-97 and consideration executed in fa plaintiff is liab sale considera plaintiff; b) Se 1988 prohibits ground that h Even if it is pre plaintiff still he had been purc deed. 13. or controvert t 14. well-reasoned accordingly, st 15. 05.02.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo Further contention of the nd shop No.1126-1127 on the tion of said property and registere in favour of defendant No.1. Howeve liable to be rejected as: a) there i deration of suit property at time o Section 4 of Prohibition of Benam ibits the plaintiff from claiming tit at he is the real owner because he s presumed that sale consideration ill he cannot claim title over suit pro purchased in name of defendant No Ld. Counsel for the appella ert the above said facts and findings As such, I find no ground is ned judgments of the ld. Courts ly, stands dismissed. Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No the plaintiff is that he is owner of he ground that he paid sale tered sale deeds were wrongly wever, the said contention of the re is no evidence to prove that e of purchase was paid for by enami Property Transaction Act, g title over suit property on the e he paid price of the same; c) tion of suit property was paid by it property because suit property t No.1 by way of registered sale ellant-plaintiff is unable to deny ings. nd is made out to interfere in the rts below. The present appeal if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 6 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document