RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL Vs. MANJIT KAUR
LAWS(SC)-2020-7-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on July 31,2020

Ravinder Kaur Grewal Appellant
VERSUS
MANJIT KAUR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HANS RAJ AND ORS. VS. MUKHTIAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH AND ORS. VS. RAM KARAN AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
HARI CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS. DHARAMPAL SINGH BABA [REFERRED TO]
MST. KALAWATI VS. SRI KRISHNA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
MT. HIRAN BIBI VS. MST. SOHAN BIBI [REFERRED TO]
SITALA BAKSH SINGH VS. JANG BAHADUR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
LALA KHUNNI LAL VS. KUNWAR GOBIND KRISHNA NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
RACHBHA VS. MT. MENDHA [REFERRED TO]
DHIYAN SINGH VS. JUGAL KISHORE [REFERRED TO]
SAHU MADHO DAS VS. MUKAND RAM [REFERRED TO]
T Y R SUBBU CHETTYS FAMILY CHARITIES VS. M RAGNAVA MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
TEK BAHADUR BHUJIL VS. DEBT SINGH BHUJIL [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARAN DAS VS. GIRIJA NANDINI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
MATURI PULLALAH VS. MATURI NARASIMHAM [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA BRHARILAL VS. GULABCHAND [REFERRED TO]
S SHANMUGAM PILLAI AND OFHERS VS. K SHANMUGAM PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
KALE VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [REFERRED TO]
BHOOP SINGH VS. RAM SINGH MAJOR [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKAR SINGHANIA VS. GAUR HARI SINGHANIA [REFERRED TO]
SOM DEV VS. RATI RAM [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY VS. SATYAWATI SOOD [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDER VS. SIYA RAM [REFERRED TO]
BRAHMANATH SINGH VS. CHANDRAKALI KUER [REFERRED TO]
AWADH NARAIN SINGH VS. NARAIN MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
BIBI AZIMAN VS. SALEHA [REFERRED TO]
BAKHTAWAR VS. SUNDER LAL [REFERRED TO]
RAMGOPAL VS. TULSHI RAM [REFERRED TO]
RAMGOUDA ANNAGOUDA PATIL VS. BHAUSAHEB [REFERRED TO]
KANHAI LAL VS. BRIJ LAL [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL VS. MANJIT KAUR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SANJIV PRAKASH VS. SEEMA KUKREJA [LAWS(SC)-2021-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
RIPUDAMAN SINGH VS. TIKKA MAHESHWAR CHAND [LAWS(SC)-2021-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
K. ARUMUGA VELAIAH VS. P.R. RAMASAMY [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-88] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - (1.)This appeal emanates from the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh[1] in R.S.A. No. 946/2004, whereby the second appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (heirs and legal representatives of Mohan Singh - original defendant No. 1) came to be allowed by answering the substantial question of law formulated as under:-
"Whether the document Ex.P-6 required registration as by way of said document the interest in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- was transferred in favour of the plaintiff?"

[1] For short, "the High Court"

(2.)Briefly stated, the suit was filed by the predecessor of the appellants herein - Harbans Singh, son of Niranjan Singh, resident of Sangrur, Punjab against his real brothers Mohan Singh (original defendant No. 1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. 2) for a declaration that he was the exclusive owner in respect of land admeasuring 11 kanals 17 marlas comprising khasra Nos. 935/1 and 935/2 situated at Mohalla Road and other properties referred to in the Schedule. He asserted that there was a family settlement with the intervention of respectable persons and family members, whereunder his ownership and possession in respect of the suit land including the constructions thereon (16 shops, a samadhi of his wife - Gurcharan Kaur and one service station with boundary wall) was accepted and acknowledged. Structures were erected by him in his capacity as owner of the suit land. It is stated that in the year 1970 after the purchase of suit land, some dispute arose between the brothers regarding the suit land and in a family settlement arrived at then, it was clearly understood that the plaintiff - Harbans Singh would be the owner of the suit property including constructions thereon and that the name of Mohan Singh (original defendant No. 1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. 2) respectively would continue to exist in the revenue record as owners to the extent of half share and the plaintiff would have no objection in that regard due to close relationship between the parties. However, the defendants raised dispute claiming half share in respect of which Harbans Singh (plaintiff) was accepted and acknowledged to be the exclusive owner and as a result of which it was decided to prepare a memorandum of family settlement incorporating the terms already settled between the parties, as referred to above. The stated memorandum was executed by all parties on 10.3.1988. However, after execution of the memorandum of family settlement dated 10.3.1988, the defendants once again raised new issues to resile from the family arrangement. As a result, Harbans Singh (plaintiff) decided to file suit for declaration on 9.5.1988, praying for a decree that he was the owner in possession of the land admeasuring 11 kanals 17 marlas comprising of khasra Nos. 935/1 and 935/2 situated at Mohalla Road. An alternative plea was also taken that since plaintiff was in possession of the whole suit property to the knowledge of the defendants openly and adversely for more than twelve years, he had acquired ownership rights by way of adverse possession.
(3.)The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement. Harbans Singh (plaintiff) filed replications. On the basis of rival pleadings, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sangrur in Suit No. 187/1988 B.T. No. 185 of 18-1-95 (18-1-95) framed following issues: -
"1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land? OPP

2. Whether there was any family settlement between the parties on 10.3.1988 and memo of family settlement was executed by parties on that day? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff constructed shops, a service station and boundary wall around the disputed property? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of suit land by adverse possession? OPP

5. Whether the property in dispute was purchased out by the income of Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property and construction on the suit land was also purchased by Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property? OPD

6. Whether Sohan Singh, Mohan Singh and Harbans Singh constitute a Joint Hindu Family? OPD

7. Whether the defendants are estopped from denying the execution of memo of family settlement by their act and conduct? OPP

8. Relief."

During the pendency of the suit, Harbans Singh (plaintiff) expired and, therefore, the appellants herein were brought on record being his legal heirs. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2000, partly decreed the suit in the following terms: -

"RELIEF

30. In view of my discussion on various issues above, the suit of the plaintiff partly succeeds and partly fails. Therefore, his suit is decreed partly to the extent that he is declared to be owner in possession of khasra no. 935/1/1/2 (5-18) and to the extent of Vi share in khasra no. 935/1/1/1 (5-19) with construction there upon. Keeping in view the relationship between the parties and the circumstances of the case, no order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.