Jaswinder Kaur vs Rattan Singh and others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

CM No.7150-C of 2011

This is an application seeking condonation of 126 days'' delay in refiling the appeal. The application is duly supported by an affidavit of the appellant.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 126 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

CM disposed of.

RSA No.2594 of 2011

The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

The plaintiff, who is the daughter of defendant No.1, namely, Rattan Singh instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction by pleading that the sale-deed executed by defendant No.1 pertaining to the suit property in favour of defendant No.3 was illegal and without legal necessity. It was pleaded that the suit property in the hands of defendant No.1 was ancestral and joint Hindu Family property of the parties. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were stated to be the real brothers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff set up a challenge to the sale-deed dated 9.10.1991 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 in terms of pleading further that such sale-deed was without any consideration, and the consequential relief of permanent injunction was also prayed for defendant No.3 to be restrained from further alienating the suit property for which mutation No.2557 had already been sanctioned in his favour.

The suit was contested. It was denied that the suit property in the hands of defendant No.1 was joint Hindu Family and coparcenary property. It was stated that defendant No.3 had purchased the suit property from defendant No.1 through registered sale-deed dated 9.10.1991 for a sale-consideration of Rs.1,58,000/-. It was stated that the suit property in the hands of defendant No.1 was self-acquired property and that defendant No.3 was a bonafide purchaser for consideration.

Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following crucial issues were struck by the trial Court:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for?OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the head note of the plaint wit6h the defendant as prayed for?OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

The trial Court having heard respective counsel for the parties and having scanned the evidence led on record dismissed the suit. The plaintiff-appellant being aggrieved of the same, preferred a civil appeal and vide impugned judgment dated 13.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, the findings of the trial Court have been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed.

I have heard Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings on two relevant issues. No evidence much less cogent evidence had been led by the plaintiff-appellant with regard to the nature of the suit property. Apart form her bald statement with regard to the suit property being ancestral at the hands of defendant No.1, nothing was placed on record which could reflect upon the source of acquisition of the suit property by Bishan Singh i.e. the father of defendant No.1. In her cross-examination, the plaintiff-appellant herself deposed that she was not aware that the property in dispute in the hands of Bishan Singh, father of defendant No.1 was his self-acquired property. As such, a concurrent finding has been recorded to the effect that it cannot be held that the property in question was joint Hindu Family coparcenary property.

Secondly, the plaintiff-appellant herself admitted that she was the married daughter of the respondent-defendant No.1. As such, in law she would cease to be a member of her father''s HUF on her marriage. Even otherwise, prior to the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, a daughter cannot be said to be a coparcener in a joint Hindu Family property. I find no perversity in the conclusions drawn by the Courts below in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present second appeal.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present second appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.