UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Patiala (A) (Shri Joginder Singh), vide its judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 1962, passed a declaratory decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant that the property belonging to Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, that is, 2/3rd share out of the coparcenary property is not liable to attachment and sale for the recovery of the arrears of tax due to the defendant from Munshi Ram father of Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. It also granted a decree restraining the Defendant front getting that land attached and auctioned for the realisation of arrears of tax due from Munshi Ram. The Defendant was also burdened with payment of costs of the suit. An appeal preferred against that judgment and decree of the trial Court by the Union of India, Defendant, was dismissed and the parties were left to bear their own costs by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Patiala (Shri Om Parkash Sharma) vide its judgment dated 31st July, 1963. Hence this appeal.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that Lakshmi Dass grandfather of Rajesh Kumar and Shaneel Kumar Plaintiffs received 22 Bighas 18 Biswas of land by allotment in village Dhakansu Kalan. This land was later on mutated in the name of his six sons, that is: Munshi Ram, Behari Lal, Walati Ram, Saat Ram, Rekha Mal and Bhagwan Dass, in equal shares. In spite of the fact that all the said six brothers were living separately that land remained joint in the names of all of them in the revenue record. Munshi Ram was entitled to 1/6th share, that is, 7 Bighas and 17 Biswas of land out of the land mentioned above which had come from his father Lakshmi Dass, Rajesh Kumar and Shaneel Kumar, Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. being the sons of Munshi Ram and, as such, being coparceners of the joint undivided property of the family were having 2/3rd share.

(3.) MUNSHI Ram was running some business in Bombay. He had to pay certain taxes in respect of that business. After the death of Munshi Ram. which took place on 17th November, 19S8, the Collector of Bombay wrote to the Collector, Patiala, in March, 3960, for the realisation of arrears of tax by attachment and sale of the land in dispute, that is, l/5th share of the land left by Lakshmi Dass, alleged to be belonging to Munshi Ram deceased. The Collector, Patiala, issued orders for the attachment of the land and the Halqa Patviari effected attachment of that land which is the land in dispute, in compliance with that order. Rajesh Kumar and others, Plaintiffs who included the sons, daughters, widows and the mother of Munshi Ram, being heirs of Munshi Ram, brought a suit for declaration to the effect that the land in dispute was their Joint Hindu Family property having been acquired by their grandfather Lakshmi Dass and, as such, it was not liable for attachment and sale for the realisation of the arrears of taxes due from Munshi Ram, beyond 1/3rd share of the same which Munshi Ram had already sold in his life time. Besides declaration to the above effect, the Plaintiffs also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from proceeding with the sale of the land in dispute, which is 2/3rd share of 1 /6th share of the land got by Munshi Ram from his father Lakshmi Dass. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: