CM-INCOMP-229- RSA-2474-2022 (O&M) [142+286 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Maya Chand and others Rishi Parkash and others Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] same is taken on record. Counsels agree to argue the main appeal. RSA-2474 [2] judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. [3] consequential relief of permanent injunction. Declaration was sought seeking annulment of the decree dated 19.12.1972. The main controvers between the four sons of Sheo Nath namely Ramesh -2025 in/and (O&M) 142+286] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-INCOMP CM-10693 CM-8508- RSA-2474 Date of Decision : Chand and others versus Rishi Parkash and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for applicant-respondent No.2. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Reply to CM-10693-2024 has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. Counsels agree to argue the main appeal. 2474-2022 (O&M) Plaintiffs are in regular second appeal, aggrieved judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking decree of declaration with the consequential relief of permanent injunction. Declaration was sought seeking annulment of the decree dated 19.12.1972. The main controvers between the four sons of Sheo Nath namely Ramesh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH INCOMP-229-2025 10693-2024 and -C-2022 in/and 2474-2022 Date of Decision : 27.03.2025 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate Advocate No.2. 2024 has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record. Counsels agree to argue the main appeal. Plaintiffs are in regular second appeal, aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking decree of declaration with the consequential relief of permanent injunction. Declaration was sought seeking annulment of the decree dated 19.12.1972. The main controversy is between the four sons of Sheo Nath namely Rameshwar, Manphool Singh, 1 2024 has been filed in Court today. The of the Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking decree of declaration with the consequential relief of permanent injunction. Declaration was sought y is war, Manphool Singh, RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.04 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-INCOMP-229- RSA-2474-2022 (O&M) Suraj Bhan and Bhagwan Dass land and filed two different suits i.e. Civil Suit Nos.624 & 626 pre-empt the sale deeds. The su were ordered to be decreed. of the sale amount, mutations were sanctioned in favour of all the four brothers. Legal representatives/successors filed present suit, seeking decree of declaration, claiming that it was only Rameshwar Dass, who intended to file the suit for pre only, who deposited the money pursuant to the decrees passed in Civil Suit Nos.624 and 626. Fra brothers by incorporating their names as co [4] pleaded by the plaintiffs. [5] following issues: -2025 in/and (O&M) Suraj Bhan and Bhagwan Dass. All the four were joint tenants in the suit land and filed two different suits i.e. Civil Suit Nos.624 & 626 mpt the sale deeds. The suits were filed by four brothers. The same were ordered to be decreed. After the sale deeds were pre of the sale amount, mutations were sanctioned in favour of all the four brothers. Legal representatives/successors filed present suit, seeking decree of declaration, claiming that it was only Rameshwar Dass, who intended to file the suit for pre only, who deposited the money pursuant to the decrees passed in Civil Suit Nos.624 and 626. Fraud was played upon Rameshwar Dass by other brothers by incorporating their names as co Suit was contested by the defendants, denying any fraud as pleaded by the plaintiffs. On the basis of the pleadings, Court of following issues:- “1. Whether the judgments and decree dated 19.12.1972 passed in civil suit No. 624/1972 titled as Manphool etc. Versus Karan Dass etc. and in civil suit No.626/1972 titled as Manphool etc. Versus Sher Singh etc. null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the mutation No.4566 and 4567 dated 27.06.85 and all subsequent entries reflecting the names of defendant No. 1 to 17 and the names of defendant No. 18 to 24 beyond 5/12t h sh not binding upon the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession in equal shares of 7/12 share of the suit land mentioned in para no.2 of the plaint as alleged? . All the four were joint tenants in the suit land and filed two different suits i.e. Civil Suit Nos.624 & 626 of 1972 its were filed by four brothers. The same After the sale deeds were pre-empted on deposit of the sale amount, mutations were sanctioned in favour of all the four brothers. Legal representatives/successors-in-interest of Rameshwar Dass filed present suit, seeking decree of declaration, claiming that it was only Rameshwar Dass, who intended to file the suit for pre-emption. It is he only, who deposited the money pursuant to the decrees passed in Civil Suit ud was played upon Rameshwar Dass by other brothers by incorporating their names as co-plaintiffs in the said suits. Suit was contested by the defendants, denying any fraud as On the basis of the pleadings, Court of the first instance framed Whether the judgments and decree dated 19.12.1972 passed in civil suit No. 624/1972 titled as Manphool etc. Versus Karan Dass etc. and in civil suit No.626/1972 titled as Manphool etc. Versus Sher Singh etc. are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs? OPP Whether the mutation No.4566 and 4567 dated 27.06.85 and all subsequent entries reflecting the names of defendant No. 1 to 17 and the names of defendant No. 18 to 24 beyond 5/12t h share are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs? OPP Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession in equal shares of 7/12 share of the suit land mentioned in para no.2 of the plaint as alleged? OPP 2 . All the four were joint tenants in the suit of 1972 to its were filed by four brothers. The same empted on deposit of the sale amount, mutations were sanctioned in favour of all the four hwar Dass filed present suit, seeking decree of declaration, claiming that it was only emption. It is he only, who deposited the money pursuant to the decrees passed in Civil Suit ud was played upon Rameshwar Dass by other Suit was contested by the defendants, denying any fraud as the first instance framed Whether the judgments and decree dated 19.12.1972 passed in civil suit No. 624/1972 titled as Manphool etc. Versus Karan Dass etc. and in civil suit No.626/1972 are illegal, OPP Whether the mutation No.4566 and 4567 dated 27.06.85 and all subsequent entries reflecting the names of defendant No. 1 to 17 and the names of defendant No. 18 are are illegal, null and void and Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession in equal shares of 7/12 share of the suit land mentioned in para RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.04 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-INCOMP-229- RSA-2474-2022 (O&M) [6] answered Issue Nos. failed to prove any fraud his life-time never raised any challenge to the decrees present suit. Letters (Exhibits P not prove the fraud. that even if the two letters (Exhibits P consideration and the same are taken on their face value, it shows that the plaintiffs were in the knowledge of fraud in the year 1997 suit was filed only in the year 2009 and thus, the same is beyond the period of limitation. The aforesaid findings stand affirmed by the Appellate Court. [7] aforesaid findings recorded by the Courts below. He submits that it is proved case that it is only Rameshwar, who deposited and paid the entire money, which led to pre that subsequent to pre -2025 in/and (O&M) 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declared and permanent injunction on the grounds as prayed for? 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? 9. Relief. ” Analyzing the evidence threadbare, Court of the first instance answered Issue Nos.1 to 4 against the plaintiffs, failed to prove any fraud played upon their father time never raised any challenge to the decrees present suit. Letters (Exhibits P-10 & P- not prove the fraud. Further on Issue No.5, Court of the first instance found that even if the two letters (Exhibits P consideration and the same are taken on their face value, it shows that the plaintiffs were in the knowledge of fraud in the year 1997 suit was filed only in the year 2009 and thus, the same is beyond the period of limitation. The aforesaid findings stand affirmed by the Appellate Court. Mr. Sharma, counsel for the appellants has assailed the aforesaid findings recorded by the Courts below. He submits that it is proved case that it is only Rameshwar, who deposited and paid the entire money, which led to pre-emption of the sale deed. It h that subsequent to pre-emption, only the sons of Rameshwar Dass Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declared and permanent injunction on the grounds as prayed for? OPP Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit is not maintainable in the present form? Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD Analyzing the evidence threadbare, Court of the first instance 1 to 4 against the plaintiffs, holding that they miserably upon their father. Rameshwar Dass during time never raised any challenge to the decrees challenged by way of -11) relied upon by the plaintiffs do Further on Issue No.5, Court of the first instance found that even if the two letters (Exhibits P-10 & P-11) are taken into consideration and the same are taken on their face value, it shows that the plaintiffs were in the knowledge of fraud in the year 1997, yet the present suit was filed only in the year 2009 and thus, the same is beyond the period of limitation. The aforesaid findings stand affirmed by the Appellate Court. Mr. Sharma, counsel for the appellants has assailed the aforesaid findings recorded by the Courts below. He submits that it is proved case that it is only Rameshwar, who deposited and paid the entire emption of the sale deed. It has come on record the sons of Rameshwar Dass were 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declared and OPP Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit is not maintainable in the present form? Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present Analyzing the evidence threadbare, Court of the first instance holding that they miserably . Rameshwar Dass during by way of relied upon by the plaintiffs do Further on Issue No.5, Court of the first instance found 11) are taken into consideration and the same are taken on their face value, it shows that the yet the present suit was filed only in the year 2009 and thus, the same is beyond the period of limitation. The aforesaid findings stand affirmed by the Appellate Court. Mr. Sharma, counsel for the appellants has assailed the aforesaid findings recorded by the Courts below. He submits that it is proved case that it is only Rameshwar, who deposited and paid the entire as come on record were in RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.04 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-INCOMP-229- RSA-2474-2022 (O&M) possession of the suit land. Exhibits P Tuhi Ram son of Manphool to Shri Kishan son of Rameshwar, wherein he admits that wrong w Rameshwar and Shyam Lal, the sale deed. [8] if it is found that the plaintiffs are not entit there is a finding with respect to exclusive possession, hence, suit ought to have been decreed for the relief of permanent injunction. [9] brothers were by all the four brothers. At the time of deposit of the money, Rameshwar knew that the decrees were in favour of all the four brothers. During his entire life, Rameshwar never claimed his ri brothers. Courts below rightly found that the sui of limitation and thus, dismissed the suit. He thus, judgment and decree and prays that the same be maintained. [10] through the records of the case. [11] same is not in dispute. There is no evidence that up their ten deeds were filed reason that Rameshwar deposited the pre any fraud was played by the other three plaintiffs. -2025 in/and (O&M) possession of the suit land. Exhibits P-10 & P Tuhi Ram son of Manphool to Shri Kishan son of Rameshwar, wherein he admits that wrong was committed by the other brothers and it is only Rameshwar and Shyam Lal, who filed the suits the sale deed. Mr. Sharma, counsel for the appellants further submits that even if it is found that the plaintiffs are not entit there is a finding with respect to exclusive possession, hence, suit ought to have been decreed for the relief of permanent injunction. Mr. Bansal, counsel for the respondents submits that the four brothers were jointly possessing the land as tenants. Civil Suits were filed by all the four brothers. At the time of deposit of the money, Rameshwar knew that the decrees were in favour of all the four brothers. During his entire life, Rameshwar never claimed his ri brothers. Courts below rightly found that the sui of limitation and thus, dismissed the suit. He thus, judgment and decree and prays that the same be maintained. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. So far as the joint tenancy of four brothers is concerned, the same is not in dispute. There is no evidence that up their tenancy in favour of Rameshwar. The suits to pre deeds were filed by all four brothers, joining as co reason that Rameshwar deposited the pre- any fraud was played by the other three plaintiffs. Moreover, Rameshwar remained 10 & P-11 are the letters written by Tuhi Ram son of Manphool to Shri Kishan son of Rameshwar, wherein he as committed by the other brothers and it is only who filed the suits, who were entitled to claim Mr. Sharma, counsel for the appellants further submits that even if it is found that the plaintiffs are not entitled for a decree of declaration, there is a finding with respect to exclusive possession, hence, suit ought to have been decreed for the relief of permanent injunction. Mr. Bansal, counsel for the respondents submits that the four jointly possessing the land as tenants. Civil Suits were filed by all the four brothers. At the time of deposit of the money, Rameshwar knew that the decrees were in favour of all the four brothers. During his entire life, Rameshwar never claimed his right to the exclusion of other 03 brothers. Courts below rightly found that the suit itself was barred by period of limitation and thus, dismissed the suit. He thus, support the impugned judgment and decree and prays that the same be maintained. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone So far as the joint tenancy of four brothers is concerned, the same is not in dispute. There is no evidence that the three brothers ever gave ancy in favour of Rameshwar. The suits to pre-empt the sale by all four brothers, joining as co-plaintiffs. Merely for the -emption money does not prove that any fraud was played by the other three brothers by joining as the ed silent throughout his life. So far 4 11 are the letters written by Tuhi Ram son of Manphool to Shri Kishan son of Rameshwar, wherein he as committed by the other brothers and it is only who were entitled to claim Mr. Sharma, counsel for the appellants further submits that even led for a decree of declaration, there is a finding with respect to exclusive possession, hence, suit ought to Mr. Bansal, counsel for the respondents submits that the four jointly possessing the land as tenants. Civil Suits were filed by all the four brothers. At the time of deposit of the money, Rameshwar knew that the decrees were in favour of all the four brothers. During his ght to the exclusion of other 03 itself was barred by period impugned I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone So far as the joint tenancy of four brothers is concerned, the three brothers ever gave empt the sale plaintiffs. Merely for the emption money does not prove that brothers by joining as the co- silent throughout his life. So far RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.04 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-INCOMP-229- RSA-2474-2022 (O&M) as letters written by Tuhi Ram son of Manphool is concerned, the same also do not explicitly satisfy the ingredients of fraud as [12] permanent injunction is concerned, the plea raised is misconceived. There is no evidence to show that the plaintiffs are in possession other co-sharers. Possession by co behalf of the other co judgment of this Court rendered in the case of reported as 1981 PLJ 204' the following propositions qua rights and liabilities of co by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 P -2025 in/and (O&M) as letters written by Tuhi Ram son of Manphool is concerned, the same also do not explicitly satisfy the ingredients of fraud as The issue with respect to decree the suit with respect to relief of permanent injunction is concerned, the plea raised is misconceived. There is no evidence to show that the plaintiffs are in possession sharers. Possession by co-sharers is always deemed to behalf of the other co-sharers. Reference can be made to Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of reported as 1981 PLJ 204', wherein the Full Bench of this Court approved he following propositions qua rights and liabilities of co by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Punjab and Haryana (1) A co-owner has an interest in the whole property and also in every parcel of it. (2) Possession of the joint property by one co eye of law, possession of all even if all but one are actually out of possession. (3) A mere occupation of entire joint property does not necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of all. (4) The above rule admits of an exception when there is ouster of a co-owner by another. But in order the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on the ground of ouster, the possession, of a coowner must not only be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of the other, as, when a co title and denies that of the other. as letters written by Tuhi Ram son of Manphool is concerned, the same also do not explicitly satisfy the ingredients of fraud as alleged. issue with respect to decree the suit with respect to relief of permanent injunction is concerned, the plea raised is misconceived. There is no evidence to show that the plaintiffs are in possession to the exclusion of sharers is always deemed to be of and on Reference can be made to Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of 'Bhartu vs. Ram Swarup, , wherein the Full Bench of this Court approved he following propositions qua rights and liabilities of co-sharers as settled by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. unjab and Haryana 528:- owner has an interest in the whole property and also Possession of the joint property by one co-owner is in the eye of law, possession of all even if all but one are actually out of possession. A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint property does not necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf The above rule admits of an exception when there is owner by another. But in order to negative the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on the ground of ouster, the possession, of a coowner must not only be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of the other, as, when a co-owner openly asserts his own hat of the other. 5 as letters written by Tuhi Ram son of Manphool is concerned, the same also issue with respect to decree the suit with respect to relief of permanent injunction is concerned, the plea raised is misconceived. There is the exclusion of and on Reference can be made to Full Bench 'Bhartu vs. Ram Swarup, , wherein the Full Bench of this Court approved sharers as settled Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. owner has an interest in the whole property and also owner is in the eye of law, possession of all even if all but one are a larger portion or even of an entire joint property does not necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf The above rule admits of an exception when there is to negative the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on the ground of ouster, the possession, of a coowner must not only be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of owner openly asserts his own RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.04 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-INCOMP-229- RSA-2474-2022 (O&M) [13] in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence. -2025 in/and (O&M) (5) Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the coowner who has been out of possession of the joint property except in the event of ouster or abandonment. (6) Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners. (7) Where a co-owner is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement consented to by the other co owners, it is not open to any arrangement without the consent of others except by filing a suit for partition. (8) The remedy of a co-owner not in possession, or not in possession of a share of the joint property, is by way of a suit for partition Or for actual joint possession, but not for ejectment. Same is the case where a co an exclusive title in himself. (9) Where a portion of the joint property is, by common consent of the co-owners, reserved for a particular common purpose, it cannot be diverted to an inconsistent user by a co-owner; if he does so, he is liable to be ejected and the particular parcel will be liable to be restored to its original condition. It is not necessary in such a case to show that special damage has be suffered. ” In view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence. Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the coowner who has been out of possession of the joint property except in the event of ouster or abandonment. owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights owner is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement consented to by the other co is not open to any one to disturb the arrangement without the consent of others except by filing a suit for partition. owner not in possession, or not in possession of a share of the joint property, is by way of a n Or for actual joint possession, but not for ejectment. Same is the case where a co-owner sets up an exclusive title in himself. Where a portion of the joint property is, by common owners, reserved for a particular it cannot be diverted to an inconsistent owner; if he does so, he is liable to be ejected and the particular parcel will be liable to be restored to its original condition. It is not necessary in such a case to show that special damage has be In view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Courts below, which are based 6 Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the coowner who has been out of possession of the joint property except in the event of ouster or abandonment. owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights owner is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement consented to by the other co- one to disturb the arrangement without the consent of others except by owner not in possession, or not in possession of a share of the joint property, is by way of a n Or for actual joint possession, but not owner sets up Where a portion of the joint property is, by common owners, reserved for a particular it cannot be diverted to an inconsistent owner; if he does so, he is liable to be ejected and the particular parcel will be liable to be restored to its original condition. It is not necessary in such a case to show that special damage has been In view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Courts below, which are based RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.04 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-INCOMP-229- RSA-2474-2022 (O&M) [14] [15] disposed off 27.03.2025 ‘R. Sharma' -2025 in/and (O&M) Dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. 27.03.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable ous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 7 ous application(s), if any, stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.04 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document