BABU LAL Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The regular second appeals in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory OF Chandigarh are filed under Sec. 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1918 Act"). Hence, it is not mandatory to frame a substantial question of law. A five Judges Bench in Pankjakshi (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Others v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157 has interpreted the aforesaid position of law.

(2.) These two appeals are connected though arising from two separate suits. However, the property in dispute is common and the plaintiffs in both the suits are the members of one family. The learned counsel representing the parties are also common and they are ad idem that both the appeals can conveniently be decided by a common judgment.

(3.) Two independent suits were filed from which these appeals have arisen. Late Sh. Mangtu Ram filed a suit on 9/6/1987 for grant of decree of permanent injunction on the basis of a registered lease deed dtd. 4/7/1987 allegedly executed by Sh.Omkar Singh for a period of 80 years at the lease amount of Rs.500.00 per annum. Late Sh. Mangtu Ram claimed that he is in possession of the property as a lessee and the defendants have no right to interfere in his possession. Late Sh. Mangtu Ram is the paternal uncle of Sh. Lal Chand (the respondent in both the appeals and central figure in the litigation). Late Sh. Mangtu Ram, in fact, was unmarried and died after the filing of the suit. Sh.Lal Chand's father, namely Sh.Mukh Ram was impleaded as legal representative of Late Sh. Mangtu Ram. In this suit, defendant No.1 (Sh.Omkar Singh) was proceeded against ex parte, whereas, the suit against the defendant No.2 was dismissed and the defendant No.3 to 19 were given up. The suit was decreed ex parte on 2/12/1998. The appeal filed by the appellant claiming to be the legal representative of Sh.Omkar Singh, who had also died on 6/7/1991, was dismissed as not maintainable. This is how the Regular Second Appeal No. 4073 of 2001 has been filed.