IN THE HI 118 Ram Parkash Krishan & Ano CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, CM-3177-C-20 delay of 136 which is suppo to all just exce condoned. MAIN CASE the concurren plaintiff for de vide judgmen Judge, Junior which was du E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA ash Vs. Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate Ms. Alisha Arora, Advocate for the appellant. *** PTA, J. 2023 This is an application unde days in re-filing the appeal. After going through the upported by affidavit of the applican exceptions and delay of 136 days in The plaintiff is in second ap rrent findings of the learned Courts declaration has been dismissed ment and decree dated 25.04.2018 nior Division, Ellenabad passed in s duly affirmed by the learned Ad D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-835-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ate cate nder 151 CPC for condonation of the contents of the application, licant, the same is allowed subject ys in re-filing the present appeal is d appeal before this Court against urts below whereby the suit of the ed by both the Courts below i.e. 2018 passed by the learned Civil in Civil Suit No.381-C of 2015; Additional District and Sessions 10 of on, ect l is nst he i.e. ivil ; ns SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Judge-II at Sirs No.253of 2018 2. status before whereas the re 3. filed by the pla is the ances father/defend Ram. A furthe alienate the su Agreement da executed by d measuring 40 necessity and permanent in ownership and of aforesaid Sa 4. separate writ averred that h in favour of d 10.11.2008 ha Sirsa vide judgment and decree da 2018. The parties shall hereinaft fore the learned trial Court i.e. Th he respondents shall be referred to The brief facts of the case e plaintiff seeking declaration that ncestral and co-parcenary prop endant No.1 as he has inherited rther declaration was sought that d he suit property in any manner wit t dated 30.06.2000 and Sale Dee by defendant No.1 in favour of de 40 kanal 0 marla out of the su and are liable to be set aside. The pl t injunction restraining the defend and possessory rights of plaintiff o id Sale Deed. Upon notice, the defen written statements. Defendant No at he had never executed any Sale of defendant No.2; and that the 8 has been obtained by defendant e dated 30.05.2022 in Civil Appeal inafter be referred to as per their The appellant as ‘the plaintiff’ to as ‘the defendants’. case are that the present suit was at the suit land measuring 6 acres roperty in the hands of his ed the same from his father Devi at defendant No.1 had no right to without legal necessity; that Sale Deed No.5486 dated 20.03.2015 f defendant No.2 regarding land e suit land is without any legal e plaintiff also sought the relief of fendants from interfering in the tiff over the suit land on the basis efendants appeared and filed t No.1 in his written statement Sale Agreement dated 30.06.2000 the judgment and decree dated dant No.2 by playing fraud upon 10 eal eir iff’ as res his evi to ale 15 nd gal of he sis led nt 0 ed on SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document defendant No No.1 that he w 5. No. 2 taking p cause of actio was submitted had failed to p no.2 became dated 10.11.2 had filed the p 6. were framed: 7. brought on rec of the plainti No.1 in illegal manner. It was acc he will have no objection if the suit Separate written statemen ng preliminary objections like suit b ction, locus-standi, suit being false a itted that the suit property is not a to prove the same. It was further me owner in possession of the suit 11.2008; and that the plaintiff in co he present suit. Accordingly, dismis On the basis of pleading o ed:- “(1). Whether the plaintiff is entit as prayed for?O.P.P. (2). Whether the plaintiff is entitl of permanent injunction as prayed (3). Whether the suit of the plain present form?O.P.D. (4). Whether the plaintiff has n standi to file the present suit?O.P.D (5). Whether the plaintiff has co true and material facts from the C (6). Relief.” On the basis of oral a n record by the parties, the learned aintiff vide judgment and decree accordingly stated by defendant suit is decreed. ment has been filed by defendant uit being not maintainable, lack of lse and frivolous etc. On merits, it t ancestral property and plaintiff her submitted that the defendant suit property by virtue of decree n connivance with defendant no.1 smissal of the suit was prayed for. ng of the parties, following issues entitled to the relief of declaration entitled to the consequential relief rayed for?O.P.P. plaintiff is not maintainable in the as no cause of action and locus O.P.D. as concealed and suppressed the the Court?O.P.D. al and documentary evidence ned trial Court dismissed the suit ree dated 25.04.2018; and the 10 nt nt of , it tiff nt ee o.1 es ion lief the cus the SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appeal filed th District and S 30.05.2022. 8. judgments an the plaintiff is namely Devi R property as sh defendant No. plaintiff had l Khasra Girdaw defendant No alienated the plaintiff had r 30.06.2000 a defendant no. 10.11.2008 in defendant no appreciate the Learned coun judgments and 9. d thereagainst also stood dismisse d Sessions Judge-II at Sirsa vide j Learned counsel for the pl s and decrees of the learned Cour iff is the only son of defendant No.1 evi Ram is still alive and defendant shareholder. Thus, the suit land w No.1 and he had no right to aliena ad led voluminous evidence in th rdawaris to show that the land wa No.1. In these circumstances, defe the suit land except on ground of ad right for seeking declaration tha 0 and the Sale Deed No.5486 d no.2, are illegal. It is further subm 8 in the hands of defendant No.2 w no.1. However, the learned Co these facts which are borne out un ounsel accordingly prays for sett s and decrees. No other argument is made issed by the learned Additional ide judgment and decree dated e plaintiff assails the above said ourts below by submitting that No.1. Grandfather of the plaintiff dant No.1 has inherited the suit nd was ancestral in the hands of ienate it. It is submitted that the the shape of Jamabandis and was ancestral in the hands of defendant No.1 could not have of legal necessity. As such, the that the Sale Agreement dated 6 dated 20.03.2015, in favour ubmitted that the decree dated .2 was obtained in collusion with Courts below have failed to t unequivocally from the record. setting aside of the impugned ade on behalf of the plaintiff. 10 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. perused the ca 11. present appea the same as it plaintiff on 27 23.05.2024, 1 adjournment h However, keep accede to the 12. the plaintiff th argument of t rejected as, a mutated in th suit property w decree. As suc property was the observatio fro I have heard learned co e case file in great detail. At the very outset, it ma ppeal is of the year 2023 and notic as it has been adjourned at reques 27.03.2023, 31.10.2023, 11.12.20 4, 17.07.2024 and 28.10.2024. ent had been made on behalf of lear keeping in view the above facts, th the said request. On merits, it is the conten that the suit property is ancestral of the learned counsel for the plain , as per the Mutation (Ex.P1) vid n the name of defendant No.1, the rty was received by defendant No.1 such, by no stretch of imagination was ancestral in nature. In this rega vations made by the learned trial Co “18. Ancestral property is the pro from his father, father's father or property should be four generat been divided by the users in the J division of the property takes p which each coparcener gets after her self-acquired property. The counsel for the plaintiff and t may be pointed out that the otice has not yet been issued in quest of learned counsel for the 2.2023, 11.01.2024, 14.05.2024, Even today, a request for f learned counsel for the plaintiff. s, this Court was not inclined to ntention of learned counsel for stral in nature. However, the said plaintiff is liable to be outrightly ) vide which suit property was , the same duly reflects that the o.1 in pursuance to a Civil Court tion can it be stated that the suit regard, I am in agreement with l Court, which are as under:- e property inherited by a Hindu er or father's father's father. This eration old. It should not have the Joint Hindu Family as once a es place, the share or portion after the division became his or The property inherited from 10 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fa mother, grand mother, uncle and under the purview of ancestral pr 19. In this case, it is sufficient established on record that the su Hindu undivided family prop property was inherited by defen Devi Chand. Copy of mutation property has been inherited by father has been placed on file as Ex. P1 reveals that the suit p defendant No. 1 in pursuance of the suit property came to the pursuance of civil court decr considered as his self-acquired pr will be considered as exclusive ow property and he will be considere and rights to dispose off the pro and wishes. There is nothing o which indicates that the sui coparcenary property. As already has been inherited by defendan pursuance of a civil court decree a decree, land in the hands of Kr became his self-acquired propert of Hindu joint coparcenary pr Mohinder Kaur Versus Pargat Si 072(P&H), it has been held by H High Court that, "If land is transfe acquisition of said land at the han self acquired property and loses coparcenary property." Similar is case. Since, defendant No. I was suit land and therefore, he was h to deal with it in any manner he any right to challenge the autho deal with suit land as the lan ancestral and coparcenary proper on record that defendant No. 1 w Hindu family. No evidence in th behalf of plaintiff and his oral ass and even brother does not falls al property. ient to note here that it is not he suit property is ancestral and property. Admittedly, the suit efendant No. 1 from his father ation through which the suit by defendant No. 1 from his le as Ex. P1. A careful perusal of uit property was inherited by ce of decree of Civil Court. Once the share of Krishan Kumar in decree, the property will be ed property and defendant No. 1 e owner in possession of the suit sidered as having all the powers property as per his own whims ng on record except pleadings, suit land is ancestral and eady stated above, the suit land ndant No. 1 from his father in ree and on the basis of civil court of Krishan i.e. defendant No. 1 perty and it loses the character y property. In case titled as at Singh & Others, 2010(3) CCC by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana ansferred by way of civil decree, e hands of beneficiaries becomes ses the character of joint Hindu ar is the situation in the present was the exclusive owner of the as having the rights and power r he likes. Plaintiff is not having uthority of defendant No. 1 to land losses the character of roperty. It is also not established . 1 was acting as Karta of joint in this regard has been led on al assertions are not sufficient to 10 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document jo 13. ancestral char alienation of s could not be d 14. 30.06.2000 wa As defendant No.2 filed suit titled as "Saha dated 30.06.2 800/11619 sh suit was decre Divn.), Sirsa v appeal was pendency of e as Court Com favour of dec Registrar, Ran the fact that t defendant No Kanal 19 Mar presume that there was any jo defendant No. 1 and defendant N joint Hindu family.” Both the Courts below hav character of suit property is not of suit property by virtue of Sale A be declared null and void. Further, as per the reco 0 was executed between defendan ant No.1 failed to perform his par suit for specific performance bearin Sahab Ram Versus Krishan" for spec .06.2000 regarding land measurin share of total land measuring 58 ecreed by the Court of the (then) sa vide judgment and decree dat as filed against judgment and of execution petition, Shri Ashok Ku Commissioner for execution and r decree-holder i.e. defendant No. Rania vide letter dated 16.09.2006 at the land measuring 64 Kanal 07 t No. 1 Krishan being 1/9 share o Marla out of which, he has sold l ny joint family of plaintiff and ant No. 1 was acting as Karta of have concurrently held that the not established and therefore, le Agreement dated 30.06.2000 record, Sale Agreement dated dant No.1 and defendant No.2. part of the contract, defendant aring civil suit No. 947-C of 2004 specific performance of contract uring 40 Kanal 0 Marla being g 580 Kanal 19 Marla. Said civil ) Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. dated 10.11.2008 (Ex.P12). No nd decree 10.11.2008. During k Kumar, Reader was appointed nd registration of sale deed in No. 2. However, the then Sub- 2006 bearing No. 183 disclosed l 07 Marla falls into the share of re of total land measuring 578 ld land measuring 23 Kanal 12 10 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Marla and his thereafter, af defendant No. 0 Marla and registered in mutation No. favour; warran recalling warr Kumar-judgme execution; and defendant No vide order dat Divn.), Ellena possession wa No. 5486 da compliance of It is very impo on 25.5.2015 10.11.2008 (E clear beyond between the prolonged leg sought to be his balance share remained as 4 , after removing all the legal ob t No. 2 was legally declared as owne nd sale deed No. 5486 dated 20 in favour of defendant No.2. On No. 2946 dated 21.04.2015 was en arrants of possession were issued. T warrants of possession was moved gment debtor without seeking rest and another application was filed t No. 1 with a view to delay the exe r dated 20.05.2015 passed by the L llenabad, both applications wer n was delivered to defendant No. 2 dated 20.03.2015 has been e e of order of the Court and the sam mportant to note that the present 015, just to defeat and deny (Ex.P12), to defendant no.2. From nd doubt that the decree dated 1 the defendants. In fact, the def legal battle to enjoy the fruits of be scuttled time and again by the as 40 Kanal 15 Marla. It is only l objections and complications, wner of land measuring 40 Kanal 20.03.2015 was executed and On the basis of said sale deed, s entered and sanctioned in his d. Thereafter, an application for oved by defendant no.1Krishan restoration of ex parte order in iled by Kalu Ram, real brother of e execution of decree. However, he Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. were decided and symbolic o. 2. Further, sale deed bearing n executed and registered in same is legally valid document. ent suit was filed by the plaintiff the fruits of decree dated From the above facts, it is very ed 10.11.2008 was not collusive defendant no.2 has fought a s of the decree; which has been the plaintiff and his family. It is 10 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document clear that the other and tha execution file passed in his f 15. District Judge, under:- the plaintiff and defendant No.1 a that the present suit has been filed by defendant No.2 for enfo his favour. Relevant findings return dge, Sirsa vide judgment and decre “17. The plaintiff also challenged dated 10.11.2008 under title "Sa collusive between defendant no.1 allegation that case was nev defendant no.1. However no evid this allegation. On the other hand plaintiff were true with regard t no.2 would have not filed execut decree already passed in his favo that it was executed and registe with the intervention of executing passed on 10.11.2008. The defen in the suit title "Saheb Ram vs. K obey the decree let alone collusio other wise fraud has to be pro doubt in civil case as in crimina evidence produced on record by as alleged is not proved on case f defendant no.1. It is also added Krishan appeared into witness deposed in favour of plaintiff. In he endorsed no objection if the indicate that plaintiff and defend with each other and the present s the purpose of execution filed enforcement of decree passed observations rendered by Ld. Tr appeared to have been filed by t o.1 are hand in glove with each een filed to scuttle purpose of enforcement of decree (Ex.P12) turned by learned Additional ecree dated 30.05.2022, are as nged the judgment and decree "Saheb Ram vs. Krishan" being no.1 and defendant no.2 on the never seriously contested by evidence has been led to prove and if allegation leveled by the ard to collusion then defendant xecution for reaping the fruit of favour. Sale deed Ex.D3 reflect gistered on 20.3.2015 that too uting court whereas decree was efendant no.1 (Judgment debtor vs. Krishan") was not willing to lusion with defendant no.2. Even proved beyond all reasonable minal case and no such type of d by the plaintiff. Thus collusion ase file. The plaintiff is son of the dded here that defendant no.1 ess box as DW-6 and almost ff. In the written statement also the suit is decreed. These facts endant no.1 are hand in glove ent suit has been filed to scuttle filed by defendant no.2 for ssed in his favour. Thus, the d. Trial Court that present suit by the plaintiff in collusion with 10 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16. controvert the 17. 18. 23.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo defendant no.1 is based on ev surmises and conjecture. In view parties the plaintiff is not entitled along-with consequential relief o prayed for. Thus, the findings ren are not perverse, against the fa parties. Therefore, the findings re are hereby affirmed and upheld. Ld. Counsel for the plain t the above said facts and findings. In view of the above, prese Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No n evidence and not based on view of the evidence led by both titled to the relief of declaration lief of permanent injunction as s rendered by the Ld. Trial Court e fact and evidence led by the gs recorded by the Ld. Trial Court eld.” laintiff is unable to dispute or gs. resent appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 10 SUNENA 2025.01.27 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document