Ram Singh vs Vikram Singh and others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the property as described in the head note of the plaint and further assailed the judgment and decree dated 20.7.1993 in suit titled ''Santosh v. Omkar'' as also judgment and decree dated 15.5.1998 in suit titled ''Aman Singh v. Omkar as also the mutations dated 27.9.1993 and 31.8.1998 sanctioned in pursuance thereof. The plaintiff further prayed for the defendants to be permanently restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The plaintiff pleaded that he was a coparcener in the Joint Hindu Family property i.e. the suit property. The father of the plaintiff, namely, Omkar was the karta and the plaintiff had a right in the suit property by birth. It was alleged that the collusive decree dated 20.7.1993 in civil suit titled ''Santosh v. Omkar'' as also decree dated 15.5.1998 titled ''Aman Singh v. Omkar'' were mere paper transactions and that his father Omkar had no right to exclude the plaintiff from the Joint Hindu Family property as the same was coparcenary property. Resultantly, even the mutations dated 27.9.1993 and 31.8.1998 sanctioned on the basis of the aforementioned decrees were liable to be set aside.

The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2009 and the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment dated 11.12.2010 has dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff appellant thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

I have heard Mr. MS Randhawa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

There is no dispute as regards the suit property to be coparcenary and Hindu Undivided Family property. The plaints of both the earlier suits the decrees of which were under challenge were adduced on record as Exhibits P6 and P11 wherein the plaintiff of those suits i.e. the present defendants had themselves claimed the suit property to be coparcenary property. Omkar i.e. the father of the plaintiff-appellant was the karta of such Hindu Undivided Family property and during his life time the plaintiff-appellant could not have claimed to be owner in possession of any specific share. The possession stood delivered to the present defendants upon the impugned decrees having been suffered by Omkar. No evidence whatsoever had been adduced on record so as to reflect the present appellant to be in possession of the suit property.

The suit instituted by the plaintiff was a simpliciter suit for declaration without claiming the relief of possession. It is well settled that such a suit seeking the relief of declaration without claiming the relief of possession as is the factual position emanating from the facts of the present case would not be maintainable. On such basis, the present appellant has been non-suited by both the Courts below.

The present second appeal does not raise any question of law, much less substantial question of law. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.