Mandeep Kaur vs Jagga Singh

Arun Palli, J.—Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2012. Appeal preferred against the said decree also failed and was accordingly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2013. That is how the plaintiffs are before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

Plaintiffs filed a suit claiming themselves to be the owners to the extent of their respective 1/8th share in the land measuring 150 bighas 13 biswas comprised in khewat No. 348, khatauni No. 1603 to 1605, khasra No. 124/2 min(12-11), 125(36-9), 293/2(12-17), 289 min(12-13),2405/2(9-7), 2411 min(2-0), 2495/1/1 (1-19),2497/2(2-17), 291/2(6-14), 297/2 min(10-2), 405 min(6-19), 292/2(-3), 405 min(6-18), 297/2 min(12-0), 297/2 min(8-6) and 1/8th share in another land measuring 2 bighas 11 biswas khewat No. 2148, khatauni No. 7229, khasra No. 131 min (2-11). A further declaration was sought that a civil court decree dated 18.12.1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 654 dated 31.10.1984 by Sub Judge 3rd Class, Bathinda, was null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs as the same was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. By way of consequential relief, the injunction was prayed against the defendants from alienating the suit land.

In short, the case set out by the plaintiffs was that defendant No. 1 i.e. Jagga Singh son of Arjan Singh, husband of plaintiff No. 1, father of plaintiffs No. 5 and 6, grandfather of plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 and father-in-law of plaintiff No. 2, succeeded to an ancestral property. Marriage between Surjit Kaur and defendant No. 1 was stated to have taken place 40 years back but the relation between two deteriorated in 1970 due to the illicit relations maintained by defendant No. 1 with Guddi @ Karamjit Kaur daughter of Karnail Singh. Further, to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs in ancestral property, he illegally suffered a decree dated 18.12.1984 in favour of defendant No. 2 i.e. Manjit Kaur daughter of Arjan Singh without any consideration in a deceitful and fraudulent manner. It was maintained that defendant No. 1 lacked capacity or any right to do so as defendant No. 2 had no pre-existing right in the suit property. Defendant No. 1 taking undue advantage of his position in the family as ''karta'', transferred the entire suit land in favour of his sister (defendant No. 2) without any legal necessity or any legal right to do so. Plaintiffs came to know of the said decree in the month of September 2004. Thus, the suit.

In the written statement filed by defendant No. 3 i.e. the Land Acquisition Collector, PSEB Patiala, it was maintained that, it was not clarified as to how and why defendant No. 3 was arrayed as a party to the suit. Further, the suit property was acquired by the defendants and the amount of compensation was deposited in the Court. Since the lis was between plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2, defendant No. 3 was not involved in any manner in the suit.

In a separate written statement filed by defendants No. 1 and 2, it was pleaded that the plaintiffs lacked any locus standi to file the present suit. The same was purported to be barred by time. It was also maintained that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. On merits, it was stated that Ranjit Singh i.e. husband of Mandeep Kaur and father of plaintiffs No. 3 and 4, during his life time had filed a suit No. 305 of 27.03.1983, through his mother and next friend Surjit Kaur against Jagga Singh but the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.1984. Ranjit Singh also filed another Suit No. 292 of 20.05.1992 against Jagga Singh but the said suit was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.1984. Similarly, Ranjit Singh filed yet another Suit No. 862 of 24.11.1990, decided on 24.08.1997. Ranjit Singh preferred appeals against the judgment and decrees dated 19.01.1984 and 24.08.1997. Even the said appeals failed and were accordingly dismissed. Plaintiffs had made no reference of the said judgments and decrees in the suit. Relationship between the parties was admitted. However, it was maintained that Jagga Singh had not inherited any property from his father and the property in his hands was not ancestral viz-a-viz the plaintiffs. It was maintained the property owned and possessed by Jagga Singh was his self-acquired property. It was also pleaded that the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1984 was indeed passed in favour of defendant No. 2 and the same was valid. So much so, the said decree was upheld in the previous suit filed by Ranjit Singh against Jagga Singh.

On an analysis of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that Ranjit Singh, husband of plaintiff No. 2 and father of plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 had filed a suit on same grounds as in the present case, claiming the suit property to be joint Hindu family ancestral and coparcenary. So much so, he had even challenged the decree dated 18.12.1984 and it had been his case not once but thrice by separate suits that the suit property was ancestral and coparcenary. Once the matter was finally adjudicated upon, it could not be re-agitated in a subsequent suit. Learned trial Court had referred to Ex. D2 copy of the judgment passed by the then Sub Judge 3rd Class, Bathinda, in which the nature of the suit property in the hands of Jagga Singh was adjudicated upon. A reference was also made to Ex. D5 another judgment and decree Ex. D6 in a suit for injunction filed by Ranjit Singh being minor through his mother, stating that the nature of the property was ancestral and coparcenary. Upon attaining majority, Ranjit Singh again filed a suit against his father Jagga Singh and Manjit Kaur in which he challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1984, again claiming that the suit property was ancestral property. Copy of the judgment was Ex. D11 and the judgment in appeal was Ex. D9. From an analysis of the judgments Ex. D2, Ex. D5, Ex. D9 and Ex. D11, learned trial Court had deduced a conclusion that the matter in issue in the present suit had already been agitated between the parties and decisions in the earlier suits reveal that the property in the hands of Jagga Singh was not ancestral in nature. Therefore, as the matter had been finally adjudicated upon and predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs namely Ranjit Singh and Surjit Kaur remained unsuccessful in the earlier suits, the present suit could not be maintained in law as the said judgments would operate as res judicata. Resultantly, vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2012, learned trial Court dismissed the suit.

Being dis-satisfied with the decree, plaintiffs preferred an appeal. Learned First Appellate Court reviewed the matter in issue, evidence on record in its entirety and on an analysis thereof, found itself in concurrence with the view drawn by the trial Court in support of the findings therein. It observed that the perusal of the judgments Ex. D2, Ex. D5 and Ex. D11 reveal that the issue in question in all the said cases were the same i.e. the suit property is ancestral and coparcenary. Thus, the said issue having already been adjudicated upon by the Courts, could not be raked up in the instant suit and previous judgments would operate as res judicata. Viz-a-viz, the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1984, the same had already been decided against Ranjit Singh, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 in the judgment and decree dated 28.04.1997, subsequently affirmed in appeal by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.07.1999. Thus, the plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 were bound by the said decrees as they were claiming right, title and interest through Ranjit Singh who had been unsuccessful in the earlier suits. Matter in issue in the present suit, being directly and substantially in issue in earlier cases, and those decrees having attained finality, suit in hand was barred by the principles of res judicata. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2013.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and examined the judgments rendered by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants could not show or point out as to how the findings recorded by both the Courts below were judicially perverse or contrary to the position on record.

In the wake of the position set out above and the conclusions that have been concurrently recorded by both the Courts below, there is hardly any ground, least plausible to interfere with the decree under challenge in the present appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. The same being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.