DHAN KAUR Vs. OM PARKASH SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Smt. Dhan Kaur @ Dhanno wife of Sh. Rampal daughter of late Sh. Chellu Ram had brought a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery against defendants i.e. S/Sh. Om Parkash Saini, Nihal Singh Saini, Rup Kishan Saini, Net Ram @ N.C. Saini, Chet Ram Saini, Bharat Singh Saini and Jain Narain Saini, her real brothers and also arraying her sisters Smt. Angoori Devi and Smt. Ghando Devi @ Nando Devi as proforma defendants.

(2.) As per the version of the plaintiff Sh. Chellu Ram (deceased) father of the parties was owner of agricultural land measuring 67 kanals 2 marlas, two dwelling houses measuring 77 square yards and 91.56 square yards respectively and a vacant plot measuring 166 square yards; that all those properties were self acquired properties of Sh. Chellu Ram; that Sh. Chellu Ram had died on 19.11.1984 leaving behind the parties as his legal representatives, in that way after his death, his estate had devolved upon the plaintiff as well as all the defendants in equal shares; however in the month of September, 2001, the plaintiff came to know that defendants No. 1 to 7 were intending to partition the aforementioned properties, at which the plaintiff asked for her share from them but the defendants informed her that the agricultural land had already been partitioned between defendants No. 1 to 7 and no share was to be given to her and defendants No. 8 and 9; that the plaintiff further came to know that the agricultural land had been got transferred by defendants No. 1 to 7 from Sh. Chellu Ram through an alleged decree dated 3.11.1979 passed in Civil Suit No. 690 of 1979, which was instituted on 30.10.1979. According to the plaintiff, the proceedings of that suit were false, collusive and benami inasmuch as neither any notice was issued to the defendants in that suit nor any trial of the case took place and the suit was decreed within four days of its institution; that the decree obtained by defendants No. 1 to 7 from Sh. Chellu Ram is collusive, fraudulent and passed in violation of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act as well as against the provisions of Stamp Act, therefore the decree in question is inadmissible and ineffective qua rights, title and interest of the plaintiff, as such liable to be considered as non-existent, without affecting the right of succession of the plaintiff in the suit property. INTER ALIA, in the plaint, the plaintiff further contended that she came to know that said agricultural land had been acquired by Government of Haryana vide notification dated 20.3.1989 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Land Acquisition Collector had passed award No. 12 dated 20.3.1989 awarding compensation @ Rs. 1.25 lacs per acre; that the plaintiff was entitled to get 1/10 share in the compensation, however, defendants No. 1 to 7 did not inform the plaintiff about her share, rather they misrepresented themselves as the only heirs of Sh. Chellu Ram and received a sum of Rs. 2,22,000/- each as compensation totalling Rs. 15,54,000/- on 20.3.1979; that on 13.10.1990, they had filed a reference before learned District Judge without impleading the present plaintiff as a party; that the reference was successful and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 87/- per square yard in addition to that compensation for trees and other superstructure was valued at Rs. 1 lakh each; consequently the defendants No. 1 to 7 received a sum of Rs. 55,54,500/- as compensation on 21.2.1994; then defendants No. 1 to 7 had also filed an appeal before High Court and vide judgment passed in RFA-2692/1992 on 8.7.1999, the compensation was enhanced from Rs. 87/- per square yard to Rs. 135/- per square yard, as such the defendants No. 1 to 7 received a sum of Rs. 6,53,800/- each totalling Rs. 45,71,000/- on 24.7.2000; thereafter the defendants No. 1 to 7 had filed a Special Leave Petition in the Apex Court and that petition is still pending. According to the plaintiff, defendants No. 1 to 7 had fraudulently received total compensation of Rs. 1,16,79,500/- and misappropriated the share of plaintiff, coming to Rs. 11,67,950/-, in that way, the plaintiff is entitled to her share in the compensation to that extent from defendants No. 1 to 7 and latter are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the plaintiff with interest.

(3.) On notice, defendants No. 1 to 3, 6 and 7 had appeared and filed a joint written statement controverting the material assertions in the plaint contending that the plaintiff had concealed the true and material facts from the court; that she did not have any locus standi to bring the suit; that the suit was time barred; that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit; that the suit was not maintainable; that the plaintiff was estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the suit and the suit was barred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. On merits, the answering defendants contended that the property in suit was ancestral coparcenary property of Sh. Chellu Ram and in a family settlement arrived at in June, 1975, Sh. Chellu Ram had relinquished his coparcenary interest in the agricultural land and the other immovable property described in the schedule and defendants No. 1 to 7 being his sons and coparceners became exclusive owners thereof. The answering defendants admitted that such land had been acquired by Government of Haryana and compensation was paid to them. According to such defendants, the plaintiff did not have any right or concern with the suit land, as such she was not entitled to get any share in the compensation, rather ownership rights of the answering defendants were duly entered in the revenue record with respect to the acquired land. Refuting the remaining allegations in the plaint, such defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.