M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) FOR some people litigation is a passion and it is used as an engine of harassment to others. If one generation has lost the litigation, the other generation is kept ready for initiating fresh dose of litigation. The cycle of litigation might have ended in the Supreme Court unfavourably but yet a new beginning is made by initiating another judicial process. These are the basic features of the case in hand. The defendant-petitioner has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution for challenging the interlocutory order dated 6.1.2005, passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, Rupnagar, whereby both the parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding possession despite the fact that sons of the plaintiff-respondent Sadhu Singh have lost the earlier litigation up to the Supreme Court in respect of the same land.
(2.) FACTS in brief are that three sons of Sadhu Singh, namely, Jaswant Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Jasvir Singh and three daughters of his brother Gurbax Singh, namely, Jaswinder Kaur, Jaswant Kaur and Baljit Kaur, who are defendant- respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the present case, had earlier filed a suit for declaration (for brevity, 'earlier suit') to the effect that they were owners of a part of the property owned by Shri Sarwan Singh, their uncle (brother of Sadhu Singh and Gurbax Singh). They claimed that they were in joint possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit land. The defendant-petitioner, who is widow of their uncle Shri Sarwan Singh (deceased) contested the aforementioned suit asserting that previously the suit property belonged to deceased Sarwan Singh who had married to her by a Karewa marriage in the year 1988. Later on the Karewanama was executed and registered on 10.9.1991 and as such she was residing with Sarwan Singh being his wife, which was common knowledge of every resident of the village. The Will set up by the children of Sadhu Singh and Gurbax Singh in the earlier suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner and she asserted that Sarwan Singh never executed any Will. It was alleged that the alleged Will dated 1.1.1993 is forged and fabricated document and, therefore, mutation in her favour after the death of Sarwan Singh had been rightly entered. On 23.4.1996, the trial Court dismissed the earlier suit by holding that Amarjit Kaur, defendant-petitioner, was legally wedded wife of deceased Sarwan Singh and the Will dated 1.1.1993 was not a genuine document. It was further held that deceased Sarwan Singh, in fact, bequeathed his property in favour of his wife Amarjit Kaur by way of registered Karewanama, who is presently defendant-petitioner. The findings recorded by the trial Court in the earlier suit were upheld by the learned District Judge, Rupnagar, vide his order dated 9.8.1999. Even Regular Second Appeal No. 4325 of 1999 was dismissed by this Court maintaining the view taken by the trail Court. The brief order of this Court reads as under :- "RSA 4325/1999 Sh. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for appellants Sh. A.K. Mittal, Advocate for respondents This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by them was also dismissed by the learned Distt. Judge. Notice of the motion was issued. After hearing the plaintiff for the parties and after perusing the record, I find no illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below, which may require interference by this Court in this regular second appeal. Initially, the plaintiffs had filed the suit, claiming the property in dispute on the basis of the will. Trial Court found that the alleged will in favour of plaintiffs was not proved. This finding was not challenged by the plaintiffs before the lower appellate Court. Even in this regular second appeal, plaintiffs have not challenged this finding of the trial Court, regarding will in question having not been proved. Furthermore, both the Courts below, on the basis of evidence led by the parties, found that Smt. Amarjit Kaur had contracted Kareva marriage with Sarwan Singh, deceased and by virtue of the said Kareva marriage, she had become widow of Sarwan Singh and was entitled to the property left by Sarwan Singh. This finding is based on evidence led by the parties and calls for no interference by this Court in this regular second appeal. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Dismissed. 3.2.2003 Sd/- V.M. Jain, Judge" Even the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 25.7.2003. This is one set of litigation which the defendant-petitioner has successfully contested up to the Supreme Court. However, that was not the end of woes of the defendant-petitioner because another suit was awaiting being Civil Suit No. RT-141/25.10.99/30.1.2003. The aforementioned suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent Sadhu Singh, seeking a declaration that he is owner in possession of the land in respect of his own share as well as share of his brothers Sarwan Singh and Gurbax Singh. The land in respect of which claim has been made in the present suit is the same one which was subject matter of litigation in the earlier suit initiated by the sons of Sadhu Singh and daughters of Gurbax singh. Along with the suit an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 was also filed wherein it has again been asserted that the defendant-petitioner was not the wife of deceased Sarwan Singh and had got mutation sanctioned in her name illegally; and at the back of the plaintiff-respondent. Even the Karewanama has been made subject matter of challenge again asserting that she did not have any right to dispose of any property of Sarwan Singh by executing sale-deed dated 5.3.1996. The aforementioned sale-deeds executed by Amarjit Kaur, defendant-petitioner, in favour of Ajaib SIngh and Harjinder Singh, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the present suit, were said to be illegal, null and void. The trial Court unmindful of the fact that in the earlier litigation the defendant-petitioner has been found to be a legally wedded wife of Sarwan Singh, deceased, and the registered Karewanama has been accepted to be a valid basis for sanctioning of mutation in her favour, went on to record the interim order granting status quo with regard to possession in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and the same reads as under :- "9. The facts which have emerged from the pleadings of both the parties reveal that there is a dispute regarding the inheritance of Sarwan Singh. The plaintiff is saying that Sarwan Singh was un-married and after his death he being his brother is entitled to succeed his share. On the other hand, defendant No. 1 alleged that she is legally wedded wife of Sarwan Singh and she was having a Karewanama in her favour. Therefore, being his legally wedded wife, she is entitled to succeed to his share. Now whether defendant No. 1 was the legally wedded wife of Sarwan Singh or not, it is a question of evidence and at this stage, it cannot be determined. Moreover this fact has come on record that defendant No. 1 had already got sanctioned the mutation in her name and on the basis of that she had sold away the property to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. So as regards the relief the relief of temporary injunction that the defendants should be restrained from alienating the suit property, I hold that even if on the final conclusion of the litigation, the plaintiff is held to be succeeded to the share of his brother Sarwan Singh, then any alienation made by the defendants during the pendency of the suit will be hit by the doctrine of lis pendence and the rights of the plaintiff would be protected. When the law itself protects the plaintiff in such like situation there is no necessity of issuing any such kind of temporary injunction. 10. As regard the question of possession is concerned, both the parties are alleging that they are in possession of the suit property. This fact has come on record that property is still joint between the parties, it has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. So in these circumstances, I hold that as the property has not been partitioned between the parties and the parties are claiming their possession over the same, interest of justice requires that in such like situation the best course is to direct both the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession till the final decision of the case. With these observations the application is disposed of. However, any thing said herein shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case."
(3.) THE defendant-petitioner and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 Ajaib Singh and Harjinder Singh preferred an appeal against the above mentioned order and the learned lower Appellate Court, Rupnagar, vide impugned order dated 6.1.2005, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the learned trial Court despite the fact that it was brought to the notice of the learned lower Appellate Court including the findings recorded on various issues in the earlier suit.;