Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 97980 (PNJ)

SATISH @ SATISH KUMAR v. HUKAM SINGH AND OTHERS

RSA/564/2020 · 2025-04-25

Nidhi Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 Satish @ Satish Kumar Hukam Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts 2. status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “ the respondent 3. defendants/respondents h daughters of Phool Singh. The plaintiff had filed the present suit IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Satish @ Satish Kumar Vs. Hukam Singh & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Nitin Sansanwal, Advocate Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration with consequential injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “ the respondents as the “defendants”. Brief facts of the case are that defendants/respondents herein, are brothers and sisters all being sons and daughters of Phool Singh. The plaintiff had filed the present suit IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-564-2020(O&M) Date of decision: 25.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate rashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “plaintiff” and Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and the are brothers and sisters all being sons and daughters of Phool Singh. The plaintiff had filed the present suit alleging 8 is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed relief of permanent parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their ” and and the are brothers and sisters all being sons and alleging SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document that he along with pro extent of 1/9 (hereinafter referred to as the suit and coparcen is ancestral in nature and therefore, the parties have equal right and share in the suit property. However, defendants and fraudulent Release Deed 06.10.2008 in their favour from Phool Singh. It was pleaded that the said Release Deed was got executed by the defendants No. view to grab the share of the plaintiff and the pro such, the said Release Deed was liab property being ancestral in nature was to devolve suit in equal share. As such, a declaration was sought to the effect that Release Deed No.2957 dated 06.10.2008 is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside and that the plaintiffs along with the pro are co-owners to the extent of 1/9 4. learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sohna had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram 18.09.2019thereby affirming the fin present second appeal by the plaintiff. that he along with pro-forma defendants No.5 to 8 are the co extent of 1/9th share each in the agricultural land to (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) being the legal heirs of Phool Singh coparceners of Hindu Joint Family. It was pleaded that the suit property is ancestral in nature and therefore, the parties have equal right and share in the suit property. However, defendants No.1 to 4 and fraudulent Release Deed (Ex.P2) bearing Vasika No.2957 in their favour from Phool Singh. It was pleaded that the said Release Deed was got executed by the defendants No. view to grab the share of the plaintiff and the pro such, the said Release Deed was liable to be cancelled; and the suit property being ancestral in nature was to devolve suit in equal share. As such, a declaration was sought to the effect that Release Deed No.2957 dated 06.10.2008 is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside and that the plaintiffs along with the pro owners to the extent of 1/9th share each in the agricultural land Vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2016 learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sohna had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram vide judgment and decree dated hereby affirming the findings of the learned trial Court. present second appeal by the plaintiff. Page 2 of 8 forma defendants No.5 to 8 are the co-owners to the share each in the agricultural land total measuring 16 kanal being the legal heirs of Phool Singh It was pleaded that the suit property is ancestral in nature and therefore, the parties have equal right and share No.1 to 4 had got executed a false bearing Vasika No.2957 dated in their favour from Phool Singh. It was pleaded that the said Release Deed was got executed by the defendants No.1 to 4 only with a view to grab the share of the plaintiff and the pro-forma respondents. As le to be cancelled; and the suit property being ancestral in nature was to devolve upon the parties to the suit in equal share. As such, a declaration was sought to the effect that Release Deed No.2957 dated 06.10.2008 is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside and that the plaintiffs along with the pro-forma defendants share each in the agricultural land. Vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2016, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sohna had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned vide judgment and decree dated dings of the learned trial Court. Hence, 8 owners to the tal measuring 16 kanal being the legal heirs of Phool Singh It was pleaded that the suit property is ancestral in nature and therefore, the parties have equal right and share had got executed a false d in their favour from Phool Singh. It was pleaded that the said 1 to 4 only with a forma respondents. As le to be cancelled; and the suit upon the parties to the suit in equal share. As such, a declaration was sought to the effect that Release Deed No.2957 dated 06.10.2008 is illegal, null and void and liable forma defendants , the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sohna had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned vide judgment and decree dated Hence, SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5. the learned Courts below were in patent error in non it is an admitted fact on record t Suit land is proven to be ancestral from (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2) as also from the evidence of Patwari and retired Kanungo. As such, all the parties to the suit have a right in the s legal heirs of Phool Singh executed by Phool Singh other parties as they were also members of the Hindu Joint Family. It is further contended that the impugned Release Deed was not welfare and benefit of the joint family nor was there any legal necessity. such, Release Deed could not rights of the plaintiff and the pro Phool Singh was about 90 years old at the time of execution of Release Deed and was not in good mental condition. been properly considered by the learned courts below. prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside. 6. 3 opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submits that no doubt the suit land was ancestral in nature, however, it is proven fact on record that in an oral settlement, some land of the s already been given to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff inter alia submits that the learned Courts below were in patent error in non it is an admitted fact on record that the suit land is ancestral in nature. Suit land is proven to be ancestral from the excerpts of the revenue record (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2) as also from the evidence of Patwari and retired Kanungo. As such, all the parties to the suit have a right in the s legal heirs of Phool Singh. Thus, Release Deed by Phool Singh in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 other parties as they were also members of the Hindu Joint Family. It is further contended that the impugned Release Deed was not welfare and benefit of the joint family nor was there any legal necessity. such, Release Deed could not have been executed rights of the plaintiff and the pro-forma defendants Phool Singh was about 90 years old at the time of execution of Release Deed and was not in good mental condition. been properly considered by the learned courts below. prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submits that no doubt the suit land was ancestral in nature, however, it is proven fact on record that in an oral settlement, some land of the s already been given to the plaintiff. Moreover, P Learned counsel for the plaintiff inter alia submits that the learned Courts below were in patent error in non-suiting the plaintiff as hat the suit land is ancestral in nature. The the excerpts of the revenue record (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2) as also from the evidence of Patwari and retired Kanungo. As such, all the parties to the suit have a right in the suit property being Release Deed could not have been in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 excluding the other parties as they were also members of the Hindu Joint Family. It is further contended that the impugned Release Deed was not neither for the welfare and benefit of the joint family nor was there any legal necessity. As have been executed thereby defeating the forma defendants. Moreover, executant Phool Singh was about 90 years old at the time of execution of Release Deed and was not in good mental condition. However, these facts have not been properly considered by the learned courts below. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submits that no doubt the suit land was ancestral in nature, however, it is proven fact on record that in an oral settlement, some land of the suit property had Moreover, Phool Singh had previously 8 Learned counsel for the plaintiff inter alia submits that suiting the plaintiff as The the excerpts of the revenue record (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2) as also from the evidence of Patwari and retired Kanungo. being could not have been the other parties as they were also members of the Hindu Joint Family. It is either for the As thereby defeating the Moreover, executant Phool Singh was about 90 years old at the time of execution of Release not It is accordingly Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submits that no doubt the suit land was ancestral in nature, however, it is proven fact on uit property had hool Singh had previously SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document executed a Sale Deed No.2199 dated 11.01.2002 in respect of 1 killa of land in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that it was in this background that the learned Courts below found that the plaintiff had already received his share of the suit property by way of the above said Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002; and therefore, it was in order to compensate the defendants No.1 to 4 that the Release Deed in question was ex favour of the remaining members of the Hindu Joint Family i.e. the defendants No.1 to 4. registered document which was executed and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Gurug document; and it has also been proven in accordance with law before the learned Courts below. and decrees suffer from no error and the present app dismissed. 7. defendant No.4 as DW5, defendant No.6 as DW3 and defendant No.7 as DW4 have specifically testified that the Release Deed dated 06.10.2008 was executed in favour said defendants had further testified that Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 was rightly executed in favour of the plaintiff as Phool Singh had taken a loan for the marriage of the defendants No.6 and 7 which executed a Sale Deed No.2199 dated 11.01.2002 in respect of 1 killa of land in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that it was in this background that ed Courts below found that the plaintiff had already received his share of the suit property by way of the above said Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002; and therefore, it was in order to compensate the defendants No.1 to 4 that the Release Deed in question was ex favour of the remaining members of the Hindu Joint Family i.e. the defendants No.1 to 4. It is further submitted that the Release Deed is a registered document which was executed and registered in the office of Registrar, Gurugram in the presence of witnesses. As such, it is a legal and it has also been proven in accordance with law before the learned Courts below. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from no error and the present app In rebuttal, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant No.4 as DW5, defendant No.6 as DW3 and defendant No.7 as DW4 have specifically testified that the Release Deed dated 06.10.2008 was executed in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 without their knowledge said defendants had further testified that Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 was rightly executed in favour of the plaintiff as Phool Singh had taken a loan for the marriage of the defendants No.6 and 7 which executed a Sale Deed No.2199 dated 11.01.2002 in respect of 1 killa of land in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that it was in this background that ed Courts below found that the plaintiff had already received his share of the suit property by way of the above said Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002; and therefore, it was in order to compensate the defendants No.1 to 4 that the Release Deed in question was executed by Phool Singh in favour of the remaining members of the Hindu Joint Family i.e. the It is further submitted that the Release Deed is a registered document which was executed and registered in the office of ram in the presence of witnesses. As such, it is a legal and it has also been proven in accordance with law before the It is accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from no error and the present appeal deserves to be learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant No.4 as DW5, defendant No.6 as DW3 and defendant No.7 as DW4 have specifically testified that the Release Deed dated 06.10.2008 was of defendants No.1 to 4 without their knowledge. The said defendants had further testified that Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 was rightly executed in favour of the plaintiff as Phool Singh had taken a loan for the marriage of the defendants No.6 and 7 which loan was repaid by the 8 executed a Sale Deed No.2199 dated 11.01.2002 in respect of 1 killa of land in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that it was in this background that ed Courts below found that the plaintiff had already received his share of the suit property by way of the above said Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002; and therefore, it was in order to compensate the defendants ecuted by Phool Singh in favour of the remaining members of the Hindu Joint Family i.e. the It is further submitted that the Release Deed is a registered document which was executed and registered in the office of ram in the presence of witnesses. As such, it is a legal and it has also been proven in accordance with law before the It is accordingly prayed that the impugned judgments eal deserves to be learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant No.4 as DW5, defendant No.6 as DW3 and defendant No.7 as DW4 have specifically testified that the Release Deed dated 06.10.2008 was . The said defendants had further testified that Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 was rightly executed in favour of the plaintiff as Phool Singh had taken a loan for loan was repaid by the SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document plaintiff. It is contended that accordingly the plaintiff has a share in the suit property. 8. 9. case file in great detail and given by thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties. 10. appellant/plaintiff. It is not disputed on record ancestral in nature. It is also not disputed that Sale Deed No. 11.01.2002 was executed by Phool Singh in favour of plaintiff for 1 killa of land. This fact was not disclosed revealed by the defendants No.1 to them. No replication was filed by the plaintiff to rebut the said contention of the defendants. Thus, the factum of the execution of the said Sale Deed has not been denied by the plaintiff orthe 11. that the said the plaintiff as Phool Singh had taken a loan for the marriage of the defendants No.6 and 7 which loan was repaid by the plaintiff. learned counsel for the No.4, 6 and 7, plaintiff. It is contended that accordingly the plaintiff has a share in the suit No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case file in great detail and given by thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the lant/plaintiff. It is not disputed on record ancestral in nature. It is also not disputed that Sale Deed No. was executed by Phool Singh in favour of plaintiff for 1 killa of land. This fact was not disclosed by the plaintiff in the plaint; and was revealed by the defendants No.1 to 3 in the written statement filed by them. No replication was filed by the plaintiff to rebut the said contention of the defendants. Even no evidence in rebuttal was led by the plain factum of the execution of the said Sale Deed has not been denied by the plaintiff orthe defendants no.4 to 8 It has been contended by the plaintiff before this Court that the said Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 was rightly executed in favour of the plaintiff as Phool Singh had taken a loan for the marriage of the defendants No.6 and 7 which loan was repaid by the plaintiff. learned counsel for the plaintiff has referred to No.4, 6 and 7, who have deposed to this effect. plaintiff. It is contended that accordingly the plaintiff has a share in the suit No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case file in great detail and given by thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the lant/plaintiff. It is not disputed on record that the suit property is ancestral in nature. It is also not disputed that Sale Deed No.2199 dated was executed by Phool Singh in favour of plaintiff for 1 killa of by the plaintiff in the plaint; and was in the written statement filed by them. No replication was filed by the plaintiff to rebut the said contention Even no evidence in rebuttal was led by the plaintiff. factum of the execution of the said Sale Deed has not been defendants no.4 to 8. has been contended by the plaintiff before this Court Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 was rightly executed in favour of the plaintiff as Phool Singh had taken a loan for the marriage of the sisters/ defendants No.6 and 7 which loan was repaid by the plaintiff. In this regard, referred to the testimony of defendants have deposed to this effect. However, admittedly, no 8 plaintiff. It is contended that accordingly the plaintiff has a share in the suit I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case file in great detail and given by thoughtful consideration to the rival I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the that the suit property is 2199 dated was executed by Phool Singh in favour of plaintiff for 1 killa of by the plaintiff in the plaint; and was in the written statement filed by them. No replication was filed by the plaintiff to rebut the said contention tiff. factum of the execution of the said Sale Deed has not been has been contended by the plaintiff before this Court Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 was rightly executed in favour of sisters/ n this regard, the testimony of defendants However, admittedly, no SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document evidence has been led by the plaintiff assertion has been made without any evidence in support. was so, why were these facts not disclosed by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is also to be noted that the parties herein, (Ex.DW2/A) has supported the 12. case of defendants No.1 to Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 in his Consequentially, Phool Singh had executed 06.10.2008 in order to compensate/give to defendants No.1 to 4 their rightful share in the Hindu Joint Family property. Release Deed, each. Thus, clearly, the Release Deed was executed welfare of the family and to compensate the remaining members of the joint family. competent to execute the Release Deed especially given the afore facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest and for the welfare of the joint family. DW3 in his evidence has categorically stated that plaintiff had got executed the Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 (Mark whereafter the impugned Release Deed was executed by Phool Singh on 06.10.2008 merely to ensure that defendants No.1 to 4 are not deprived of evidence has been led by the plaintiff to prove this has been made without any evidence in support. was so, why were these facts not disclosed by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is also to be noted that Omwati wife of deceased Phool Singh the parties herein, in her evidence as DW2 and vide her affidavit (Ex.DW2/A) has supported the version as given by defendants No.1 to 3. Further, to the contrary, it defendants No.1 to 3 that the plaintiff had got executed the said Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 in his favour by playing fraud upon Phool Singh Consequentially, Phool Singh had executed 06.10.2008 in order to compensate/give to defendants No.1 to 4 their rightful share in the Hindu Joint Family property. Release Deed, the defendants No.1 to 4 have also been given 1 killa of land clearly, the Release Deed was executed welfare of the family and to compensate the remaining members of the joint family. Phool Singh being Karta of the Hindu competent to execute the Release Deed especially given the afore facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest and for the welfare of the joint family. DW3 in his evidence has categorically stated that f had got executed the Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 (Mark whereafter the impugned Release Deed was executed by Phool Singh on 06.10.2008 merely to ensure that defendants No.1 to 4 are not deprived of to prove this fact. Only a bald has been made without any evidence in support. Moreover, if this was so, why were these facts not disclosed by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is Omwati wife of deceased Phool Singh/and mother of in her evidence as DW2 and vide her affidavit version as given by defendants No.1 to 3. the contrary, it was the clear and consistent that the plaintiff had got executed the said favour by playing fraud upon Phool Singh. Consequentially, Phool Singh had executed the Release Deed dated 06.10.2008 in order to compensate/give to defendants No.1 to 4 their rightful share in the Hindu Joint Family property. Admittedly, vide the the defendants No.1 to 4 have also been given 1 killa of land clearly, the Release Deed was executed by Phool Singh for the welfare of the family and to compensate the remaining members of the Phool Singh being Karta of the Hindu Joint Family was fully competent to execute the Release Deed especially given the afore-noted facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest and for the welfare of the joint family. DW3 in his evidence has categorically stated that f had got executed the Sale Deed dated 11.01.2002 (Mark X); whereafter the impugned Release Deed was executed by Phool Singh on 06.10.2008 merely to ensure that defendants No.1 to 4 are not deprived of 8 Only a bald if this was so, why were these facts not disclosed by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is /and mother of in her evidence as DW2 and vide her affidavit clear and consistent that the plaintiff had got executed the said . the Release Deed dated 06.10.2008 in order to compensate/give to defendants No.1 to 4 their Admittedly, vide the the defendants No.1 to 4 have also been given 1 killa of land by Phool Singh for the welfare of the family and to compensate the remaining members of the Joint Family was fully noted facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest and for the welfare of the joint family. DW3 in his evidence has categorically stated that ); whereafter the impugned Release Deed was executed by Phool Singh on 06.10.2008 merely to ensure that defendants No.1 to 4 are not deprived of SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document their rightful ownership over the ancestral land. Defe deposed that Release Deed was executed with the consent of the remaining members of the family. deed suffers from any illegality. 13. Para 26 of the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2016 favour of defendant No. 1 to 4 with the consent of remaining fraudule their rightful ownership over the ancestral land. Defe deposed that Release Deed was executed with the consent of the remaining members of the family. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned release deed suffers from any illegality. Relevant findings of the l Para 26 of the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2016 “26. Now, the onus shifts on the defendant No. 1 to 3 to show that the impugned release deed was executed for legal necessity as well as welfare of the joint defendant No. 3 when appeared in the witness box has stated in unequivocal terms that plaintiff by playing a fraud upon deceased Phool Singh got executed a sale deed no. 2199 dated 11.01.2002 and to compensate the share of remaining members of the joint family release deed was executed in the favour of defendant No. 1 to 4 with the consent of remaining members of the family. Whereas, defendant No. 4, 6& 7 have negated the fact of the alleged consent of all the coparceners while executing impugned Release the execution of sale deed dated 10.01.2002 in the favour of the plaintiff has not been disputed by the parties to the suit and it is the stand of the defendants no. 1 to 3 that the impugned release deed was e remaining members of the joint family and executed. Since, the question of legality of sale deed dated 10.01.2002 is not under consideration of present suit but from the testimonies of the witnesses, it is reveale fraudulently got executed sale deed of 1 their rightful ownership over the ancestral land. Defendant No.3 has further deposed that Release Deed was executed with the consent of the remaining Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned release Relevant findings of the ld. trial Court as contained in Para 26 of the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2016 are as follows:- 26. Now, the onus shifts on the defendant No. 1 to 3 to show that the impugned release deed was executed for legal necessity as well as welfare of the joint family. In this case, defendant No. 3 when appeared in the witness box has stated in unequivocal terms that plaintiff by playing a fraud upon deceased Phool Singh got executed a sale deed no. 2199 dated 11.01.2002 and to compensate the share of remaining embers of the joint family release deed was executed in the favour of defendant No. 1 to 4 with the consent of remaining members of the family. Whereas, defendant No. 4, 6& 7 have negated the fact of the alleged consent of all the coparceners ng impugned Release deed. In the present case, the execution of sale deed dated 10.01.2002 in the favour of the plaintiff has not been disputed by the parties to the suit and it is the stand of the defendants no. 1 to 3 that the impugned release deed was executed to compensate the remaining members of the joint family and thus was rightly executed. Since, the question of legality of sale deed dated 10.01.2002 is not under consideration of present suit but from the testimonies of the witnesses, it is revealed that plaintiff ntly got executed sale deed of 1killa in his favour and 8 ndant No.3 has further deposed that Release Deed was executed with the consent of the remaining Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned release trial Court as contained in 26. Now, the onus shifts on the defendant No. 1 to 3 to show that the impugned release deed was executed for legal family. In this case, defendant No. 3 when appeared in the witness box has stated in unequivocal terms that plaintiff by playing a fraud upon deceased Phool Singh got executed a sale deed no. 2199 dated 11.01.2002 and to compensate the share of remaining embers of the joint family release deed was executed in the favour of defendant No. 1 to 4 with the consent of remaining members of the family. Whereas, defendant No. 4, 6& 7 have negated the fact of the alleged consent of all the coparceners eed. In the present case, the execution of sale deed dated 10.01.2002 in the favour of the plaintiff has not been disputed by the parties to the suit and it is the stand of the defendants no. 1 to 3 that the xecuted to compensate the thus was rightly executed. Since, the question of legality of sale deed dated 10.01.2002 is not under consideration of present suit but from d that plaintiff killa in his favour and SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14. reasoning of the learned Trial Court. I out to interfere in the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. present appeal is 15. 25.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: to compensate the remaining members of the joint family and thus was done for the welfare of the family. It is a settled law that a Karta can transfer or alienate the land und i). Apatkale i.e. in times of distress. ii). Kutubarthe i.e. for the sake of family. iii) Dharamarthe i.e. for the performance of indispensable duties. In the present case, the release deed was executed for the welfare of the family at large as a sale deed dated 10.01.2002 in the favour of the plaintiff and that too of the ancestral property was made in the favour of the plaintiff by Phool Singh (now deceased) and to compensate the remaining members of the joint family, the impugned Rele 06.10.2008 was executed. Hence, in view of the above sai discussion the defendant No. 1to 3 have been able to rebut the stand of plaintiff and thus the issue is decided accordingly in the favour of defendants and against the plaint I am in complete agreement with the above said reasoning of the learned Trial Court. I find no ground whatsoever is made out to interfere in the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. present appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No to compensate the remaining members of the joint family and thus was done for the welfare of the family. It is a settled law that a Karta can transfer or alienate the land under 3 cases: Apatkale i.e. in times of distress. . Kutubarthe i.e. for the sake of family. Dharamarthe i.e. for the performance of indispensable In the present case, the release deed was executed for the large as a sale deed dated 10.01.2002 in the favour of the plaintiff and that too of the ancestral property was made in the favour of the plaintiff by Phool Singh (now deceased) and to compensate the remaining members the joint family, the impugned Release deed no. 2957 dated 06.10.2008 was executed. Hence, in view of the above said to 3 have been able to rebut the stand of plaintiff and thus the issue is decided accordingly in the favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.” agreement with the above said find no ground whatsoever is made out to interfere in the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. The Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 8 to compensate the remaining members of the joint family and thus was done for the welfare of the family. It is a settled law Dharamarthe i.e. for the performance of indispensable In the present case, the release deed was executed for the large as a sale deed dated 10.01.2002 in the favour of the plaintiff and that too of the ancestral property was made in the favour of the plaintiff by Phool Singh (now deceased) and to compensate the remaining members ase deed no. 2957 dated d to 3 have been able to rebut the stand of plaintiff and thus the issue is decided accordingly in agreement with the above said find no ground whatsoever is made The SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document