SUKHA SINGH Vs. GIAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM Nos. 18479 -80 -CII of 2013 of Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2013.

(2.) THE impugned order was passed in an application filed by the plaintiff that his suit in Case No. 210 of 2001 titled as 'Sukha Singh Versus Gian Singh' should be clubbed with another case titled as 'Kirpa Singh Versus Sukha Singh' and which is pending in the Court. Admittedly, there had been earlier an application for clubbing the two cases and the Court had dismissed the same on 15.12.2011. The Court, while dismissing the application, held that an application itself had been moved only after the evidence of the plaintiff had commenced. The petitioner would contend that the suit filed by Kirpa Singh against him was instituted in the year 1998 and it takes up the same issues of what are required to be considered also in his own suit which was filed later in the year and numbered as 210 of 2001. The first suit was filed by Kirpa Singh as an owner in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share out of the total land of 151 kanals 19 marlas and for an injunction restraining Sukha Singh from in any way interfering with his possession or alienating the property. The suit was founded on a plea that one Mangal Singh was the owner to the extent of about 1/2 share of the entire land and during his time, he has sold 25 kanals 19 marlas in favour of Kirpa Singh and his sons under 5 different sale deeds between the years 1979 to 1989. The statement in defence was that Mangal Singh had executed a Will in favour of Sukha Singh and sons of Sukha Singh had an independent contention to make that the sales effected by Sukha Singh in respect of some portions of the property were not binding on them. Based on the contentions raised by the respective parties, the key issues which have been framed in the first suit instituted by Kirpa Singh related to the validity of the alleged Will said to have been executed by Mangal Singh and whether Mangal Singh had executed the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and his sons. In the suit instituted by Sukha Singh in the year 2001, the contentions have again been that Kirpa Singh, who was the second defendant in the suit was the "pichhlag son" and he contended that the suit properties were the ancestral properties of Mangal Singh. It is contended that there was a voluntary settlement whereby Mangal Singh had given to Sukha Singh, Gian Singh and Kirpa Singh, their respective shares and Mangal Singh himself had suffered a collusive decree against the first defendant to give effect to the manner of family settlement and contemporaneously executed the sale deeds in favour of defendants 2 to 6 and another son of Harbhajan Singh, and a Will in favour of the plaintiff. Kirpa Singh was actually making a challenge to the family settlement in suit in the year 1998 and, therefore, Sukha Singh had contended in such an eventuality, the sale deeds in favour of Kirpa Singh's sons and the collusive decree were all null and void. By the very nature of contentions raised, it can be seen that a decision of one case is bound to effect the other case. In all these cases, the issue of whether there existed a family settlement in the manner spoken to by Sukha Singh, namely, by a collusive decree 5 sale deeds and a Will alleged to have been executed by Mangal Singh would be the predominant considerations. It is not as if the suits are in two different courts, they are in same court. If at an earlier stage, the Court had disallowed the application, there is still no bar of res judicata since the Court should endeavour to do an act which will prevent a conflict in judgments and make way for a quicker disposal. I will not find that the earlier dismissal of application would come in the way of this application consolidating both suits.