RAM DITTA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of three appeals bearing RSA No. 4068 of 2000 titled as "Gurmail Singh v. Rajbir Singh and another", RSA No. 4069 of 2000 titled as "Gurmail Singh v. Rajbir Singh and another" and RSA No. 4288 of 2000 titled as "Mohinder Kaur v. Rajbir Singh and others "as all the appeals have arisen from the same judgment and decree passed by the trial Court while deciding three suits, namely, Civil Suit No. 212 of 15.6.1989 titled as Gurmail Singh v. Nirmal Singh and another; Civil Suit No. 560 of 27.3.1991 titled as Mohinder Kaur v. Nirmal Singh and others; and Civil Suit No. 215 of 8.5.1990 titled as Gurmail Singh v. Nirmal Singh and others. In Civil Suit No. 212 of 15.6.1989 titled as Gurmail Singh v. Nirmal Singh and another, a declaration has been sought that the land measuring 37 kanals 16 marlas is ancestral/coparcenary/Joint Hindu Family property and the decree dated 21.4.1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 92 of 1988 titled as Nirmal Singh v. Dalip Singh, by Sub Judge IInd Class, Ludhiana, subsequent mutation No. 614 dated 23.6.1998 sanctioned in favour of Nirmal Singh and also transfer of electric tubewell connection No. 5D-203 is null and void. In Civil Suit No. 560 of 27.3.1991 titled as Mohinder Kaur v. Nirmal Singh and others, the aforesaid decree dated 21.4.1988 is under challenge and in Civil Suit No. 215 of 8.5.1990 titled as Gurmail Singh v. Nirmal Singh and others, permanent injunction has been prayed for restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging and changing the nature of the suit property. In the 1st Suit bearing Civil Suit No. 212 of 15.6.1989, Nirmal Singh (Defendant No. 1) and Dalip Singh (Defendant No. 2) filed their separate written statements, wherein it was alleged that the suit property is self acquired property of Dalip Singh (defendant No. 2) and plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the impugned decree. Gurmail Singh has been separated from the defendants for the last 18 years. The suit property was purchased by Dalip Singh and his brothers Harcharan Singh and Anokh Singh from Maingal Singh. Dalip Singh also inherited the suit property from Narain Singh son of Lal Singh by way of mutation No. 177 dated 27.5.1937 and inherited from Hardit Singh vide mutation No. 202 dated 6.5.1940. The plaintiff Gurmail Singh filed replication to each set of the written statement and on the pleadings of the parties as many as five issues were framed including "whether plaintiff and defendants constitute Joint Hindu Family and are coparceners of suit property as alleged and whether decree dated 2.4.1988 is illegal, null and void?"

(2.) In the Civil Suit No. 560 of 27.3.1991, the plaintiff also challenged decree dated 21.4.1988 alleging that the plaintiff and defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are the children of Dalip Singh and are governed by Hindu Law. The suit property is ancestral, which is inherited by Dalip Singh and could not have been transferred by him by way of consent decree in favour of one of the sons. The suit was contested by defendants No. 4 and 5. It was denied that the suit property is ancestral and the judgment and decree under challenge is illegal. In this suit also, as many as five issues were framed in which the main issue was "whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for"?

(3.) In the 3rd suit, namely, Civil Suit No. 215 of 8.5.1990, plaintiff Gurmail Singh, prayed for permanent injunction restraining Nirmal Singh from alienating the suit property on the same ground that it is ancestral property in which the plaintiff has also right by birth. This suit was also contested by the defendants in which a plea of Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. was also raised besides denying the averment that the property in dispute is ancestral. The plaintiff filed replication and on the pleadings of the parties as many as six issues were framed in which the basis issue was "whether the plaintiff Gurmail Singh is in possession of the suit property and is entitled to seek permanent injunction?"