VED PARKASH Vs. SHANTI SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the common judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 34/2007 and Cross Appeal No. 40/2007.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 0-56-02 hectares bearing Khewat No. 25, Khatauni No. 54, Khasra No. 509, 510, 514, 641 and 971 as entered in Missal Haquiat Bandibast Jadid for the year 1986-87 situated in village Sunehra. Tehsil and District Una is Joint Hindu co-parcenary property. Entries in the name of respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant' for convenience sake) in the column of ownership on the basis of alleged gift deed dated 24.8.1967 is wrong, illegal and null and void. The land was originally owned by Ganga Ram. Thereafter, it was succeeded by Munshi from whom it devolved to his sons Atma Ram and Harnam Dass. Plaintiff and defendants are descendants of Harnam Dass. According to the plaintiff, parties were governed by Mitakshara law and the suit land was a Joint Hindu Family co-parcenary property. According to him, no co-parcner or Karta of the family can make alienation or gift the Joint Hindu Family co- parcenary property. According to the plaintiff, the gift could not be made in favour of the defendant by Harnam Dass. The gift deed was registered and the entries were also made in the mutation register. The gift deed was made on 24.8.1967.

(3.) REPLICATION was filed by the plaintiff. Issues were framed on 13.2.1997 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). The learned trial court decided that the suit land was co-parcenary property. However, the suit was dismissed on 31.5.2007 on the ground of limitation. Plaintiff filed an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 34/2007 against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2007 before the learned Additional District Judge, Una. Defendant has also filed Cross-Appeal No. 40/2007 against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2007. Cross-Appeal was filed on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned trial court that the suit property was co-parcener was not legal. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2007 preferred by the plaintiff and Cross-Appeal No. 40 of 2007 was allowed. It is in these circumstances, the Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2007 and Cross-Appeal No. 40 of 2007.