Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 378 (PNJ)

Ved Kaur v. Anita Poonia

2010-01-15

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2010
Judgment RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. This common order shall dispose of three RSA Nos.1757, 2459 and 2460 of 2006 together. 2. One Mahender Singh was the owner of the property in question. He left behind three daughters and one son on 21.1.1983. Son was born to him on 10.4.1983 after his death. His widow Ved Kaur got a mutation of inheritance sanctioned in her name on 9.4.1985 on the basis of forged oral Will. A collusive suit was filed by her minor son Giri Raj titled as Giri Raj Vs. Smt. Ved Kaur, decreed on 21.3.1986 and became owner of 2/3rd share of the property whereas 1/3rd share was retained by Ved Kaur. On the basis of the said decree, a mutation was also sanctioned on 9.9.1986. Giri Raj defendant No.1, owner of 2/3rd share, sold land measuring 64 kanals on 25.8.1994 to Karan Singh son of Kanhaya Ram. Later on, Anita Punia and Renu Kumari daughters of Mahender singh filed a suit for possession by way of succession on the basis of inheritance which was decreed by the trial court observing as under: "the will and mutation No.1840 sanctioned on the basis of Will are wrong, illegal, null and void. The plaintiffs are owners of 1/9th share (1/18th share each) in the land in question. Accordingly, decree in civil suit No.115 dated 21.3.1986 and mutation No.1920 and sale deed sanctioned on the basis of that decree in favour of defendant No.5 will be deemed to be decreed, mutation and sale deed in respect of share only and not in respect of specific numbers. The defendants are entitled to get possession of their 1/9th share by way of partition of land. Suit of the plaintiffs accordingly stands decreed with costs. " Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 17.1.2003, two appeals were preferred i. e. Civil Appeal No.170 titled as Anita poonia and another Vs. Smt. Ved Kaur and others and Civil Appeal No.169 titled as Ved Kaur and others Vs. Anita Poonia and others out of which Civil Appeal no.170 titled as Anita Poonia and another Vs. Smt. Ved Kaur and others was allowed and appeal filed by Ved Kaur etc. was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar. Anita Poonia and others out of which Civil Appeal no.170 titled as Anita Poonia and another Vs. Smt. Ved Kaur and others was allowed and appeal filed by Ved Kaur etc. was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar. Against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, three appeals have been filed in this Court, namely, RSA No.1757 of 2006 titled as Ved Kaur and others Vs. Anita poonia and others, RSA No.2459 of 2006 titled as Karan Singh Vs. Anita Poonia and others and RSA No.2460 of 2006 titled as Karan Singh Vs. Anita Poonia and others. The aforesaid Appeals bearing RSA Nos.2459 and 2460 of 2006 were filed by Karan Singh for the reason that the appeal filed by Anita Poonia and Renu kumari was allowed as a result of which sale deed Ex. P11 executed by Ved Kaur in favour of Karan Singh would be valid only with regard to 1/3rd share of Giri raj and the second appeal filed by Ved Kaur etc. was dismissed because her Will was declared to be illegal and she was not found to be the owner of the property, which was transferred by her by way of Civil court decree in favour of Giri Raj. In all the three aforesaid cases, notice of motion was issued. 3 In RSA No.1757 of 2006, CM No.150-C of 2010 has been filed for permission to place on record documents (Annexures A-1 and A-2) and CM no.151-CI of 2010 has been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Sec.151 cpc for passing appropriate judgment and decree in terms of the compromise dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure A-1) arrived at between the parties to the appeal. CM No.150-C of 2010 is allowed and Compromise deed (Annexures A-1 and A-2) is taken on record. Notice in the application bearing CM No.151-C of 2010 is issued. At this stage, Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate is appearing on behalf of contesting respondents along with Sh. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate appearing for proforma respondent. Sh. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate has submitted that he is not a party to the agreement and is only concerned with the protection of the sale deed Ex. P11 executed in his favour. At this stage, Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate is appearing on behalf of contesting respondents along with Sh. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate appearing for proforma respondent. Sh. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate has submitted that he is not a party to the agreement and is only concerned with the protection of the sale deed Ex. P11 executed in his favour. Since it is a dispute between the family members of the deceased Mahinder Singh and if a compromise has been arrived at between them, then he has no objection if it does not effect his rights. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No1 and 2 (plaintiffs Anita Poonia and Renu Kumari) had submitted that the terms and conditions of the compromise are acceptable to him. According to the compromise, as orally stated by the counsel for the parties that the compromise has no effect on the rights of the subsequent purchaser, namely Karan Singh as it has been specifically provided in para 11 of the compromise that "the land already sold in favour of Karan singh son of Kanhaya vide sale deed dated 28.8.1993 by appellant Ved Kaur shall not be apportioned from the share of respondents Anita Poonia and Renu Kumari which has been settled as 30 kanals for each of them (60 kanals in total ). The said Karan shall get his share from the land in the hands of appellants Ved Kaur, Giriraj, Neelima and Poonam. 4. In view of the above, CM No.151-C of 2010 is allowed and in terms of the compromise (Annexure A-1), the judgment and decree of the trial Court is modified. It is directed that a decree be drawn as per the terms and conditions of the compromise between the parties. The aforesaid three appeals are thus, disposed of.