MEERA JINDAL Vs. NAVEEN JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgments of the Courts below at Hisar District dated 11.04.2016 and 28.02.2020 whereby the suit for declaration dated 31.08.2010, with consequential relief of injunction, filed by the plaintiff-appellant, had been dismissed by both the Courts.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the Lower Appellate Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that respondents No.8 to 12 were bona fide purchasers as possession had not been handed over initially to respondent No.6, Rajat Ghai, who had purchased share in the property to the extent of 1/4 th, vide first sale deed dated 17.12.2009 (Ex.R-3). Secondly, it is argued that family arrangements are liable to be upheld and therefore, the findings by the Courts below that a family arrangement between the parties was bogus, was not justified. Counsel for the respondents No.8 to 12, the purchasers has submitted that the plea was that the property was purchased from a joint family account but neither any such accounts were produced nor any bank statements were produced to prove the said facts. Similarly, apart from the plaintiff, no other family member had appeared in support of the case of the appellant and thus, submitted that once the plaintiff could not stand on her own legs, the Courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that it was a bogus family settlement and was rightly ignored.

(3.) The dispute pertains to the plot the details of which have been given in the judgments of the Courts below which was sold by one Janardhan Dass on 04.01.207 (Ex.PW-1/A) to respondent No.1, who is none else but the son of the appellant. The claim of the appellant was that she was the sole and exclusive owner of the plot on the basis of the oral family settlement dated 01.04.2009 and which was reduced in writing on 01.01.2010 (Ex.PW-3/B). The plot was alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff from the joint Hindu family funds of the appellant, respondent No.1 and the second son, Praveen Jindal. The family settlement was also alleged to have been signed by the 3 family members. The alienation of the plot initially to respondent No.6, Rajat Ghai vide sale deed dated 17.12.2009 (Ex.R-3) in respect of the 1/4th share was, thus, challenged and the further sale deed to respondent No.7, Anil Bansal on 30.12.2009 (Ex.R-7). It is not disputed that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.7 had further alienated his share on 06.09.2010 (Ex.R-8) to respondent No.11, Sanjay who had further alienated it to respondent No.2. It was further alleged that respondent No.1 had executed a GPA dated 27.07.2010 (Ex.R-2) in favour of respondent No.2, Anand who had executed registered sale deed on 29.07.2010 (Ex.R-4) i.e., 2 days subsequent to Swaroop Chand, respondent No.3. The said respondent had further alienated the land on 04.08.2010 (Ex.R-5) to respondents No.4 and 5, Kewal Krishan and Kuldeep. Resultantly, the same were challenged. The property was further alienated to respondents No.8 to 12 on 30.08.2010 (Ex.R-6). The case of the plaintiff-appellant was that she had also filed a Civil Suit for injunction in which stay of alienation had been granted in her favour, after the sale deed had taken place.