SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of the following four Regular Second Appeals :- (i) RSA No. 129 of 2000 Dasa Singh and Gian Singh versus Jasmer Singh (ii) RSA No. 130 of 2000 Dasa Singh and Gian Singh versus Ajmer Singh and Hardial Singh. (iii) RSA No. 174 of 2000 Ajmer Singh and Hardial Singh versus Dasa Singh and Gian Singh. (iv) RSA No. 1091 of 2000 Jasmer Sing versus Dasa Singh and Gian Singh. The aforesaid appeals have arisen from the following two civil suits, filed by Jasmer Singh and his two brothers Ajmer Singh and Hardial Singh against their father Dasa Singh and brother Gian Singh : (i) Civil Suit No. 447-CS dated 8.5.1992 Jasmer Singh versus Dasa Singh and Gian Singh (ii) Civil Suit No. 49 dated 21.12.1992 Ajmer Singh and Hardial Singh versus Dasa Singh and Gian Singh. Since in both the suits, the identical questions of facts and law were involved, therefore, they were consolidated by the trial Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Dasa Singh was having four sons, namely Gian Singh, Jasmer Singh, Ajmer Singh and Hardial Singh. He was also having two daughters, who were married and one of whom has now expired. The family of Dasa Singh was a Joint Hindu Family and in the revenue record, the land measuring 140 kanals 5 marlas was recorded in the name of Dasa Singh. The dispute in the family started, when Dasa Singh suffered a consent decree dated 8.12.1989 in favour of one of his son, namely Gian Singh regarding 41 kanals 11 marlas, comprising specific khasra numbers. The suffering of this consent decree led to filing of aforesaid two suits by the remaining three brothers. One suit was filed by Jasmer Singh and another was filed by Ajmer Singh and Hardial Singh against their father Dasa Singh and brother Gian Singh. In their respective suits, they pleaded that the land in question measuring 140 kanals 5 marlas is a Joint Hindu Family property, in which they are coparceners alongwith their father and they have 1/5 share each in the said property. It was further pleaded that in the year 1988, a family settlement was arrived at between the parties, in which the aforesaid land was partitioned in five equal shares. But no specific khasra number was given to any one, as the actual partition was to be made in the partition proceedings before the revenue court. It was further pleaded that without doing the actual partition, their father Dasa Singh suffered a consent decree on 8.12.1989 in favour of one of his son namely Gian Singh, vide which land measuring 41 kanals 11 marlas was transferred by way of specific khasra numbers without any legal right and the said decree is wholly illegal and void. The defendants Dasa Singh Gian Singh jointly contested both the aforesaid suits. Their plea was that the property in question is not the Joint Hindu Family property. It was pleaded that in the year 1973, an oral family settlement was arrived at between the father and the sons, wherein the entire land in question was given to the father and each of the sons was compensated by means of gold and silver ornaments. Therefore, Dasa Singh, being owner of the land in question, was entitled to transfer his land by way of consent decree in favour of one of his sons. The suits were contested on various other grounds inter-alia non-joinder of necessary parties; and locus standi of the plaintiffs to challenge the alienation made by the karta of the family.
(3.) THE learned trial Court partly decreed the suits filed by the plaintiffs. It was held that the land in question was Joint Hindu Family property, in which each of the coparcener was having 1/5th share. However, the claim of the plaintiffs regarding setting aside the consent decree dated 8.12.1989 was declined while holding that the sons being coparceners in the Joint Hindu Family were not competent to challenge the alienation made by the Karta of the family during this life time. Against the aforesaid judgment of the trial court, both the parties filed appeals. Two appeals were filed by the plaintiffs against part of the judgment, vide which their suits regarding setting aside the consent decree was dismissed. Two appeals were filed by the defendants against the portion of the judgment, vide which it was held that the land in question was joint Hindu Family property, in which each coparcener was having 1/5th share.;