Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1077 (PNJ)

Paras Ram v. Tek Chand

2009-07-03

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2009
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J.- This order shall dispose of two applications, i.e. C.M. No.2768-C of 2004 in RSA No.218 of 1982 vide which the respondents have prayed that directions be issued for reconstruction of the record of the paper-book in the aforementioned Regular Second Appeal and C.M. No.10635-C of2004 vide which the appellants have prayed for recalling the order dated6.7.2004, vide which this Court had ordered reconstruction of the record. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that one Har Nand died leaving behind three sons, namely, Jia lal, Tek Chand and Haria. Jia Lal and Hariapre-deceased their brother Tek Chand. Tek Chand was unmarried and was issueless and he is alleged to have suffered a consent decree dated20.5.1972 before the Civil Court, whereby he bequeathed half his property in favour of Paras Ram and Sahi Ram sons of Jia Lal, whereas the other half was bequeathed in favour of Mohinder Pal, Rishi Raj, Anil, Mukesh and Ramesh sons of Haria. The possession of the land is also alleged to have been given to the respective parties who were his cognates (nephews) being sons of his brothers Jia Lal and Haria. 3. Subsequently, Tek Chand instituted a civil suit No.90/79 before the Sub Judge Ist Class, Sonepat against Paras Ram, Sahi Ram sons of Jia Lal and also against Mohinder Pal, Rishi Raj, Anil, Mukesh and Ramesh sons of Haria, wherein it was averred that the alleged collusive decree dated19/20.5.1972 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and that he had never bequeathed any of his lands in favour of either of the parties and that the alleged collusive civil Court decree be set aside. 4. Separate written statements were filed on behalf of Paras Ramand Sahi Ram on the one hand and Mohinder Pal etc. on the other. Mohinder Pal etc. stated that they have not got any decree in their favour and that they have no concern with the lands of Tek Chand. However, Paras Ram and Sahi Ram contested the suit stating that the decree was voluntarily suffered by Tek Chand in favour of the sons of Jia Lal and Haria. The civil Court dismissed the suit filed by Tek Chand vide judgement and decree dated 3.9.1980. The aforementioned judgement was challenged by Tek Chand by filing an appeal before the Addl. However, Paras Ram and Sahi Ram contested the suit stating that the decree was voluntarily suffered by Tek Chand in favour of the sons of Jia Lal and Haria. The civil Court dismissed the suit filed by Tek Chand vide judgement and decree dated 3.9.1980. The aforementioned judgement was challenged by Tek Chand by filing an appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Sonepat who vide his judgement dated 3.12.1981, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree dated 19/20.5.1972. The aforementioned judgement passed by Addl. District Judge, Sonepat was challenged by Paras Ram and Sahi Ram by filing Regular Second Appeal No.218 of 1982 which was admitted. It is pertinent to mention here that Mohinder Pal etc. sons of Haria were made proforma respondents. During the pendency of the aforementioned RSA, Tek Chand died. Thereafter both the parties, i.e. Paras Ram and Sahi Ramon the one hand and Mohinder Pal, Rishi Raj, Anil, Mukesh and Ramesh sons of Haria on the other, with the intervention of their relatives, entered into a compromise and filed an application before the High Court that as they are the only surviving legal heirs of Tek Chand, hence his property be bequeathed in their favour as per compromise. The High Court on the basis of the compromise deed dated 25.11.1987, passed the consent decree dated3.12.1987 vide which the land of Tek Chand was given in equal shares, i.e. one half share in favour of the appellants Paras Ram and Sahi Ram son of Jia Lal and the other half share in favour of Mohinder Pal, Rishi Raj, Anil,Mukesh and Ramesh sons of Haria. 5. On the basis of the aforementioned decree, mutation No.2403dated 22.4.1994 of the land was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ganaur in favour of the respective parties in their presence as well as in the presence of Patwari and Harbans Lal, Lambardar. 6. 5. On the basis of the aforementioned decree, mutation No.2403dated 22.4.1994 of the land was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ganaur in favour of the respective parties in their presence as well as in the presence of Patwari and Harbans Lal, Lambardar. 6. Thus, the entire matter stood settled between the parties by virtue of passing of the decree of the High Court dated 3.12.1987.However, the respondents, i.e. Mohinder Pal, Rishi Raj, Anil, Mukesh and Ramesh sons of Haria filed C.M. No.2768-C of 2004, where it was prayed that as the record of RSA No.218 of 1982 has been burnt in a fire which broke out in the record room of the High Court in the year 1999 and that the documents therein were required for production in a civil suit, therefore, the records of this case be re-constructed. In a routine manner, this Court directed that the records be reconstructed. However, as no records were available in the High Court, therefore, this Court directed the District &Sessions Judge, Sonepat to reconstruct the record in the present case and send its report. In pursuance to the aforementioned orders a report was sent by the District Judge. 7. Thereafter the non-applicants/appellants filed an application forre calling the order vide which the records were ordered to be reconstructed. It was averred that RSA No.218 of 1982 was decided on the basis of a compromise between the appellants and proforma respondents and that on the basis of the decree of the High Court mutations have also been sanctioned by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ganaur in the presence of Lambardar and both the respective parties. It was further averred that the proforma respondents are taking undue advantage of the destruction of record in a fire which broke out in the record room of the High Court and that they are trying to have false records reconstructed. It has also been averred that the report submitted by the District Judge, Sonepat is on the basis of attested true copies of uncertified copies by the counsel for the proforma respondents and hence the report of the District Judge cannot betaken into consideration for the purpose of reconstruction of the record. 8. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 9. 8. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 9. The present case, i.e. RSA No.218 of 1982 was decided on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties, i.e. Paras Ram and Sahi Ram sons of Jiai Lal on the one hand and Mohinder Pal, Rishi Raj, Anil, Mukesh and Ramesh sons of Haria on the other. The only record which is relevant in the present case is the consent decree dated 3.12.1987,passed by the High Court in RSA No.218 of 1982. On the basis of said decree mutations have duly been sanctioned. I have carefully perused mutation No.2403 dated 22.4.1994, which clearly shows that mutation is being sanctioned on the basis of judgement and decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri. The mutation also categorically states that the same is being sanctioned in the presence of Harbans Lal, Lambardar and also in the presence of Mohinder Pal, Rishi Raj, Anil, Mukesh and Ramesh and in the presence of Paras Ramand Sahi Ram. Mutation No.2403 was entered on 17.2.1994 by the Patwari and was accepted by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ganaur vide order dated 22.4.1994. Thus, from the aforementioned document it is clear that the entire decree as passed by the High Court in RSA No.218 of 1982 dated3.12.1987, has duly been incorporated in the mutation. Mohinder Pal etc. who were the respondents in the aforementioned RSA had duly acted upon the compromise decree of the High Court for more than 17 years. It is only in the year 2004, after they realized that the records have been burnt in a fire in the High Court that they filed the present application in the year 2004 for reconstruction of the record. It is clear that they are obviously trying to take undue advantage of the destruction of record and are trying to create a false and fictitious record for ulterior motive. Even the report of the District Judge also cannot be relied upon as no original or attested copies of the High Court were produced, but only true copies by the counsel were produced. No certified copies or true copies of the documents were produced and hence no record can be reconstructed on the basis of unauthenticated documents. Even the report of the District Judge also cannot be relied upon as no original or attested copies of the High Court were produced, but only true copies by the counsel were produced. No certified copies or true copies of the documents were produced and hence no record can be reconstructed on the basis of unauthenticated documents. The only authenticated document in the present case was mutation No.2403 dated 22.4.1994 which clearly states that the mutation is being sanctioned on the basis of High Court judgement and decree dated 3.12.1987. From the above discussion, it is clear that the respondents are trying to unsettle the settled dispute between the parties by trying to have the records reconstructed for ulterior motive which cannot be permitted. 10. In view of the above, it is held that the High Court judgement and decree dated 3.12.1987 has been fully incorporated in MutationNo.2403 which was sanctioned on 22.4.1994, and has been reproduced therein verbatim. Accordingly, I allow C.M. No.10635-C of 2004 in RSANo.218 of 1982 filed by the appellants for recalling the order dated6.7.2004, and accordingly recall the order dated 6.7.2004, vide which directions were given to the Registry to reconstruct the record of RSANo.218 of 1982. I also dismiss the application filed by the respondents, i.e. C.M. No.2768-C of 2004 in RSA No.218 of 1982 for reconstruction of the record. ------------