In this post we will discuss about a case related to ancestral property wherein both the petitioner and defendant who were family members claimed the ownership of the property.
Anil Kumar vs Rameshwar Dass And Anr on 18 February 2020
Appellants
Anil Kumar
Respondents
Rameshwar Dass & Anr.
In the present appeal, the plaintiff has approached the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Courts after suffering unfavourable findings by the subordinate Courts whereby the plaintiff’s suit of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of ½ share of the suit property with resultant relief of permanent injunction deterring his father-defendant no.1and brother-defendant no.2 was dismissed.
The factual matrix of the case as pleaded the plaintiff is as follows. The plaintiff’s grandfather Late Sh. Ram Narain acquired the suit property with his own finances. The said property is ancestral in nature to both parties and is stated to be on lease from Municipal Corporation, Sonepat. After purchasing the said property, Late Sh. Ram Narain entered the property in the name of his son i.e. defendant no.1. A family settlement took place between the parties in the year 1994. In pursuance of the settlement, the suit property was equally divided between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 i.e grandsons of Late Sh. Ram Narain. The plaintiff also pleaded that a will was also executed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 by Late Sh. Ram Narain on 20.10.1994. It thus follows that the plaintiff and defendant no.2 became owners of the property during the lifetime of their grandfather by virtue of the family settlement and have been in possession of the suit property. It was further pleaded that defendant no.1 being the father of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 was living with them in the suit property. However defendant no.1 in collaboration with defendant no.2 took advantage of the wrong entries in the lease record and threatened to alienate the plaintiff from the suit property after which the suit was filed.
ALSO READ- SUIT FOR PARTITION CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI KHARAR DERABASSI
The defendants in their written statement pleaded that defendant no.1 was the owner in possession of the suit property after having taken the property on lease from the Gram Panchayat in the year 1964-65 @ 2 paise per square yards per year. It was further pleaded that defendant no.1 was paging lease money in respect of the suit property to the Municipal Corporation, Sonepat. Electric meter was also installed in the suit property in the name of the defendant no.1 and the house tax accrued was also paid by him. The defendants denied the ancestral nature of the property and contested that Late Sh. Ram Narain had no right, interest, title in the suit property. Defendant no. 1 had also constructed a house in the leased suit land and pleaded that defendant no.2 resided with his family separately. It was further submitted that the plaintiff without obtaining a divorce from his first wife married another woman and furthermore, a child is also born out of the second wedlock and as far as the suit property is concerned he has already registered a will dated 20.11.2003 in favour of his grandsons.
Based upon the pleading of both parties the Courts framed the following legal issues to deal with in the present appeal.
- Whether Sh. Ram Narain purchased the property from his own funds?
- Whether the suit property is ancestral in nature?
- Whether the suit property was divided equally between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 in a family statement?
- Whether Sh. Late Ram Narain executed a will dated 20.10.1994 in favour of plaintiff and defendant no.2?
- Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?
- Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit?
- Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action to file the present suit?
- Whether the plaintiff has concealed any material facts?
- Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs U/s 35-A CPC?
- Relief
ALSO READ- SELLING OF PROPERTY ON FORGED PAPERS: UNITECH LIMITED
Both parties submitted relevant documents and shreds of evidence to support their pleadings and fortify their claims. After going through the evidence on record the Trial Courts by a decree dated 06.12.2013 dismissed the suit. Against the judgment of the Trial Courts, the plaintiff filed an appeal which too was dismissed and the findings of the trial Courts stood reaffirmed by judgment dated 25.03.2016. Aggrieved by the findings if the subordinate Courts the plaintiff approaches the Hon’ble High Courts of Punjab and Haryana.
The plaintiff claimed that his grandfather Late Sh. Ram Narain had purchased the property and being the owner of the property thereof he transferred the property in favour of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 during his lifetime by registered will dated 20.10.1994. However, the Courts observed that the said will does not describe the suit property specifically. Furthermore, no evidence was bright on record by the plaintiff to show that his grandfather was the owner in possession of the suit property. With regard to the family settlement as well, no substantial evidence was produced by the plaintiff. On the contrary defendant, no.1 has altogether denied the existence of a family settlement between the parties.
The Hon’ble Courts also noted the fact that the Municipal Committee Record showed that that defendant no.1 was paying the house tax of the suit property for a long span of time. The plaintiff had relied upon mutation no. 956 by which the plaintiff and defendant no.2 inherited the land measuring 38 canals 17 marlas after the death of their grandfather. But importantly the mutation does not pertain to or mentions anything about the inheritance of the suit property by the plaintiff and defendant no.2 after the death of their grandfather. The Courts observed that the plaintiff has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that he is either the owner of the suit property or the suit property is ancestral in nature furthermore there is nothing on record to deduce the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The Courts remarked that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of proof placed on him and for the reasons mentioned herein the trial Courts had rightly dismissed the appeal.
The Courts held that the inferences drawn by the Learned trial Courts and the Learned first appellate Courts are in accordance with the shreds of evidence and records of the case. The Courts held that there is nothing unjust or perverse in the findings of the subordinate Courts. The lower Courts have duly appreciated the evidence on record and therefore there is no room for any interference or disturbance with the concurrent findings of the subordinate Courts. Furthermore, there is neither any question of law, much less substantial question of law, which is a crucial prerequisite for entertaining the appeal before the Hon’ble High Courts.
ALSO READ- MODES OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY
Thus, for the reason mentioned above the appeal is dismissed on the grounds that it lacks any merit. Consequently, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned subordinate Courts are upheld.
This post was written by Aniket Rai
For case specific advice, one may contact best/top/expert Civil property family Lawyers of District Courts in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi & High Court Chandigarh
More on 99888-17966.
