JUG LAL Vs. JEETA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Jug Lal (since deceased & now represented by LRs) filed the instant suit against the defendants (now respondents No.1 and 2) seeking a declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the agricultural land measuring 19 Bighas 2 1/3 Biswas, i.e. half share of 38 Bighas 5 Biswas, as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint, and the decree dated 11.12.1979 passed in Civil Suit No.599 of 1979 titled as 'Jita Ram v. Surta' was illegal, null and void and not binding upon his rights. In the alternative, he further prayed that if it is found he was not in possession of the suit land, in that eventuality a decree for joint possession of the land be passed.

(2.) AS per the averments, Rai Singh, father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and one Surta, was in cultivating possession of the suit land as an occupancy tenant and by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, said Rai Singh became owner of the suit land. After his death, plaintiff and defendant No.2 along with Surta became joint owners of the suit land in equal shares being successors in interest of said Rai Singh, however, the suit land was entered in the name of Surta only being Karta of the Joint Hindu Family. It was further alleged that the said Joint Hindu Family constituted by Surta etc. was owner of coparcenary property, which is the subject matter of the present litigation. It was further averred that defendant No.1, taking advantage of the wrong revenue entry existing in the name of Surta, obtained a fraudulent decree regarding the suit land in his favour on 11.12.1979 in Civil Suit No.599 of 1979 titled as 'Jita Ram v. Surta' from the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Karnal. It was alleged that said Surta never made any statement in this regard before the Court nor did he engage any counsel. Even otherwise the land being coparcenary Joint Hindu Family ancestral property in the hands of Surta, could not be legally disposed of or transferred in favour of defendant No.1. Thus, the said judgment and decree was illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff qua the land in dispute and the said decree conferred no valid title upon defendant No.1. Even otherwise, defendant No.1 was not a member of the said Joint Hindu Family. Moreover, there was no dispute regarding the suit land as such, and thus, there was no occasion for the alleged family settlement. Defendant No.1 had also never been in possession of any part of the suit land and had no concern with the same. Since the defendants failed to admit the claim of the plaintiff, necessity arose to file the instant suit.

(3.) DEFENDANTS resisted the suit raising various preliminary objections. It was submitted that the suit land was not Joint Hindu Family property and the parties did not constitute any Joint Hindu Family. The impugned judgment and decree was valid and binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no concern with the suit land and he was not the owner in possession of the same. The suit land was self acquired property of Surta, who was competent to dispose of the same in any manner. He was living separately and was issueless. He kept defendant No.1 with him as his own son. Defendant No.1 also performed Krewa (Kirya) ceremony at the time of death of Surta. During his lifetime, a family settlement took place and by virtue of that he transferred his property in favour of defendant No.1 and since then defendant No.1 was in cultivating possession of the suit land. It was denied that all the three brothers were joint owners in equal shares, and thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Replication, controverting the averments made in the written statement, was filed and on the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: