SUJATA Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction in respect of properties, detailed in para 1(a) to (d) (unnumbered) of the plaint was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.2014 that came to be affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Rewari. There is no dispute that appellants-plaintiffs are the class-I heirs of Naresh (since deceased) son of Hari Singh defendant No. 1 and said Naresh was the brother of Suresh Kumar defendant No. 2. They have claimed 1/3rd share in agricultural land, detailed in paras 1(a) and 1(b) of the plaint on the premise that the same is ancestral property and Naresh became entitle to 1/3rd share in suit land being one of the coparceners with defendants No. 1 and 2. It is pleaded that Naresh alongwith defendants No. 1 and 2 was a coparcener in joint Hindu family and suit land was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 being karta of the joint Hindu family. They have challenged sale deed No. 1817 dated 6.2.2008 and mutation No. 544 sanctioned on 26.2.2008 in respect of alienation of land mentioned in para 1(b) in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 on the premise that the same is for fake consideration, illegal, void, without any authority and not binding upon rights of the plaintiffs. The ancestral land could not be alienated without consent of all coparceners.

(2.) Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed joint written statement and contested claim of the appellants-plaintiffs that suit land is ancestral or joint Hindu family property or entitlement of the appellants qua share in the said land. It is averred that in the year 1999, plaintiff No. 1 settled everything with defendant No. 1 and in token of settlement, she took Rs. 2 lakhs on 13.12.1999 and executed a receipt in favour of defendant No. 1 in presence of her son Shubham and relinquished all her claims in the property. Plaintiff no. 1 did not have cordial relations with Naresh and he was got imprisoned by her in the years 1988 and 1990. It is pleaded that defendant No. 1 is the sole owner of land mentioned in para 1(a) of the plaint and before sale, he was absolute owner of land mentioned in para 1(b) and now defendants No. 2 and 3 (sic) are absolute owners on the basis of sale deed dated 6.2.2008. Late Sh. Rao Shadi Ram father of defendant No. 1 was great freedom fighter and he suggested defendant No. 1 to establish a welfare society. Defendant No. 1 established society named 'Hariom Shiksha Samiti, Kapriwas' to run a school in the name of Hari Om Public School at Kapriwas. The society is registered with Director Firms and Societies Chandigarh and the school is recognized by the Director of Secondary Education Chandigarh, Haryana. The answering defendant No. 1 has given 30 kanal 16 marlas of land to the society/school out of 106 kanal 13 marlas of land. Defendant No. 1 had spent a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs on his heart operation, medication, blood transfusion and care etc. he purchased Tata Indica car for Rs. 2.5 lakhs. Being Chairman of the school, defendant No. 1 purchased Mahindra School Bus for about Rs. 8 lakhs on 22.11.2006. Under pressure of repayment of loan from various sources and the school to flourish, defendant No. 1 had to dispose of land measuring 27 kanal 4 marlas. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 denied the plea of suit land being ancestral coparcenary property with the averment that defendant No. 1 is the sole owner of the land and not karta of the joint family. Defendant No. 1 got the land during consolidation of holdings in the year 1961-62. After marriage of plaintiff No. 1 with Naresh, she always pressed for money so that she could stay at Gurgaon after buying a plot/house. Naresh was forced to indulge in drinking which caused his death and plaintiff No. 1 is responsible for the same. All other material averments of the plaint have been denied with a prayer for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Defendants No. 3 and 4 filed their separate written statement raising preliminary objections pertaining to locus standi; maintainability of the suit in present form; suit being without cause of action against answering defendants and plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands. It is averred that answering defendants purchased the land mentioned in para 1(b) of the plaint for a valuable consideration of Rs. 51,85,000/- and they are bona fide purchasers. The appellants-plaintiffs filed replication to written statements filed by both sets of defendants and re-assert their stand taken in the plaint.