Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 616 (PNJ)

Layak Ram v. Sharamwati

2006-02-21

VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment VINEY MITTAL and j. JJ. 1. This judgment shall dispose of R. S. A. No.3469 and 3470 of 2002 as both these appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned first appellate court. 2. The plaintiff is the appellant before this court. He filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. He claimed that he is co-owner in possession to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit property and that the sale deed dated November 12,1990 whereby defendants No.1 and 2 had sold the suit property to defendants No.3 to 7 was illegal, bad and not binding upon the plaintiff and that the lease deed dated November 13,1990 whereby certain property had been leased out for a period of 99 years to defendants No.3 to 7 were also challenged as illegal and not binding. 3. The plaintiff claimed that he along with his father Ramla was coparcener in the property in question. The suit property was claimed to be ancestral property in the hands of Ramla. Ramla was having 1/4th share in the suit property as coparcener. Ramla died in the year 1977. The plaintiff claimed that on the death of Ramla mutation of his inheritance was wrongly entered as 1/3rd share each between plaintiff, Smt. Daulti daughter of ramla and Shmt. Phoolwati wife of Ramla. Later on Shmt. Phoolwati died and her inheritance also opened. Her share also devolved upon plaintiff and defendant No.1 in equal share. In this manner the plaintiff claimed that Smt. Daulti had no right to alienate 1/4 share in the total property in favour of defendants No.3 to 7. In fact, Daulti suffered a decree in the year 1990 in favour of her husband Chander Pal Nagar, defendant No.2. The said decree was also challenged. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was held that the property in question was ancestral and defendants No.1 and 2 had sold suit property beyond their share. 5. The defendants and the vendees took up the matter by way of separate appeals before the leaned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court reappraised the evidence. It was held by the learned first appellate Court that the property in question was coparcenary and ancestral property. It was also held that Ramla had share in the suit property at the time of his death as coparcener. The learned first appellate Court reappraised the evidence. It was held by the learned first appellate Court that the property in question was coparcenary and ancestral property. It was also held that Ramla had share in the suit property at the time of his death as coparcener. Upon his death,his share in the suit property devolved in favour of plaintiff,phoolwati and Daulti. On the death of Phoolwati, her share also devolved in equal share in favour of the plaintiff and Smt. Daulti. In this manner Smt. . Daulti was held to be having 1/8 th share in the suit property. 6. However, the learned first appellate Court held that a mutation of inheritance of Ramla had been entered prior to 1978 in favour of daulti and she was shown to be the owner to the extent of 1/3 share. Later on her share increased on the death of Phoolwati. She was held to be owner of 1/2 share of the suit property. In these circumstances, learned first appellate court held that the vendees who were strangers had made inquiries from the revenue record and were transferees for valid consideration. They had no notice of any defect in the title of Smt. Daulti. The aforesaid vendees were held to be bonafide purchasers and without any notice of defect/deficiency in the title of Daulti. Consequently the appeal of the defendants was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 7. From the findings of fact recorded by the learned first appellate court, it is apparent that after death of Daulti in the year 1977, the mutation of his inheritance was entered in the year 1978. The present suit had been filed by the plaintiff on December 17,1990. In the meantime smt. 8. Daulti had remained recorded as owner of the suit property to the extent of 1/2 share. Consequently vendees were held to be bonafide purchasers for valid consideration of the suit property and without notice of any defect in the title of vendor. 9. It is apparent that since the plaintiff has remained silent for a period of almost 12 years and in the meantime the interest of third parties has accrued, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be heard to claim any better rights vis-a-vis the vendees-defendants. 10. 9. It is apparent that since the plaintiff has remained silent for a period of almost 12 years and in the meantime the interest of third parties has accrued, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be heard to claim any better rights vis-a-vis the vendees-defendants. 10. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. 11. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeals. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeals and both the appeals are dismissed.