Sher
Singh & Ors Vs. Gamdoor Singh [1996] INSC 1606 (13 December 1996)
K. Ramaswamy,
G.T. Nanavati
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
We
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This
appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on December 8, 1995 in RSA No. 2617/95.
The
appellants had filed suit No.8 of 9.2.1978 against Arjan Singh, son of Badan
Singh in the Court of Sub Judge, III class, Patiala for declaration that the
plaintiffs in that suit were owners and were in possession from 1968 to the
extent of 5/6 share, along with the defendant, of agricultural land admeasuring
74 kanals 12 marlas comprised in Khewat Khata Nos.5/5 Khasra No.68/1(7-10) etc.
situated in village Ghagga, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. Arjan Singh had
admitted in his pleadings that the property was ancestral Hindu Joint Family
and suffered a decree. The present suit came to be filed by Gamdoor Singh, the
respondent in this case for a declaration that the decree therein was collusive
decree and did not bind him. The trial Court granted the decree. On the appeal
it was confirmed and Second Appeal was dismissed. Thus this appeal by Special
Leave.
It is
contended by Shri Ujjagar Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants,
that unless the respondent establishes that exists Joint Hindu Family of three
succeeding generations, there is no presumption that the property is the co-parcenary
property. Therefore, the view of the Courts below that it is a co-parcenary property
and that the respondent by virtue of his birth in the family is entitled to 1/6
share in the property and the previous decree to which he was not member does
not bind him, is not correct in law. We do not find any force in the
contention.
It was
their own case in the previous suit that it is ancestral property and that Arjan
Singh and his sons are members of the join family. Once the existence of joint
family was not in dispute, necessarily the property held by the family assumed
the character of a co-parcenary property and every member of the family would
be entitled by birth to share in the co-parcenary property unless any one of
the co- parceners pleads, by separate pleadings, and proves that some of the
properties or all the properties are his self- acquired properties and could
not be blended in the co- parcenary property.
It is
settled law that even the self-acquired property can also be blended into the
joint family hotchpoch enveloping the character of co-parcenary property. It is
also not pleaded in the written statement that it is not joint family property.
The very first issue by the trial Court which was not objected to was whether
the property was ancestral property of the parties? The second issue was
whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the suit land and the
third issue was whether the previous decree bound the respondent? Under those
circumstances, both the parties proceeded on the premise that it was a co- parcenary
property belonging to the Joint Hindu Family. The finding recorded by all the
courts is that the property belonged to Joint Hindu Family. Therefore, the
finding that the respondent is entitled to 1/6 of share by virtue of his birth
is well justified and the finding that the previous decree does not bind him as
being tainted with fraud, is not vitiated by any error of law.
It is
also an admitted fact that he was not a party to the earlier suit and the
decree was granted without his consent. Under those circumstances, the finding
that it is a collusive decree is a finding of fact based on appreciation of
evidence. Under those circumstances, we do not find any substantial question of
law warranting interference.
The
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
