RANJIV SINGH SAINI Vs. ARJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that as per the" principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhoop 'Singh v. Ram Singh' the Court was obliged to examine in greater detail whether the party had a pre-existing right or not. He further contended that learned Courts below have misappreciated the evidence and have riot arrived at a correct decision in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In order to examine the merits of this contention, reference to the basic facts would be necessary.

(2.) Ranjiv Singh Saini and another son of Arjan Singh filed a suit against him stating that they were sons of Arjan Singh; the defendant was owner in possession and he had transferred the said land by way of a family settlement in favour of the plaintiffs on 15.6.1996 and as total land has fallen to their share they have become owners in possession. They futher stated that as the defendant was trying to resile from the settlement, the suit for declaration was filed. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the claim of.the plaintiff and even made a statement to that effect. As hardly any issue arose for determination before the learned Trial Court, no issue was framed and a legal controversy whether a decree in favour of the plaintiffs should be passed or not was decided by the learned Trial Court. The learned trial Court came to the following conclusion :

(3.) The suit was filed for declaration on 3.9.1996 while the alleged settlement is dated 15.6.1996. For the said settlement which created the rights of the parties for the first time was admittedly not a registered document. The said document did not confirm or reiterate any pre-existing right as per the revenue record. The property was stated to be the self acquired property of the defendant, as such, by virtue of their birth, the plaintiff got no interest in the suit property.