DHANPATI AND ORS. Vs. BUDH RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenged in the present regular second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 19.9.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs by reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.5.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faridabad.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff No.1 Dhanpati is the wife of Budh Ram - defendant No.1, whereas plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are the daughters and sons of Budh Ram. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that suit property was previously owned by Munsi and Mohan, both sons of late Yadram. During his lifetime, Mohan relinquished his right in the suit property in favour of his sons Budh Ram, Jaivir and Jagram. Therefore, the suit property in the hand of defendant No.1 Budh Ram is ancestral in nature. It was also claimed that under the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, daughter is also given the status of coparcener. Plaintiff No.1 being the wife and plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 being the daughters and sons are the coparceners in the suit property. It is pleaded that plaintiffs have been turned out of the residential house by defendant No.1 and they are living with their grandmother at village Balua, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon. Defendant No.1 is alleged to be a man of bad habits and is addicted to drinking, gambling, womanizing etc. and wasting money after alienating the ancestral property for self enjoyment. The suit property has been acquired by the defendant No.2 -HUDA vide Award No.3 dated 30.4.1998 for the development and utilisation of land for Transport Communication and Commercial, Residential and Institutional use in Sector 61, Faridabad. A compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,13,079.85 was paid to defendant No.1 by defendant No.2. Major part of the awarded amount has already been spent by defendant No.1 without legal necessity and to satisfy his lust of bad habits. A reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is pending. If defendant No.1 succeeds in withdrawing the enhanced amount, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, relief of decree for declaration was sought to the effect that the plaintiffs are lawful share holders and coparceners and defendant No.1 has no right to alienate the suit property or to receive the compensation amount beyond his 1/6th share.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant No.1 Budh Ram, who denied that plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are the coparceners in suit property or that they have got any share in the disputed property. The right of the plaintiff to receive share in the compensation of the acquired land was also denied. It was pleaded that on the receipt of compensation, he had purchased the property measuring 132 square yards vide sale deed dated 22.6.1999 in his name for Rs. four lac. He has also returned the bank loan of L 1,80,000/- and also purchased a tractor for the welfare and benefit of his family, especially, minor plaintiffs. It was denied that he has spent the amount on his bad habits. From the pleadings, following issues were framed:-