Vinita Singh vs Uttaradevi Singh

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.2021 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Janjgir in Civil Suit No.23A/2017 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 5 for declaration and permanent injunction against defendants No.1 to 5 was partly allowed and the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 5 were declared as co-owner/co-sharer in the suit land that is to say that the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 5 were declared to be co-sharer in the suit property i.e. 5.40 acres (the land and share of deceased Ranneeta) upto the extent of 1/3rd share in Khasra Nos.112, 113, 137, 204, 231/1, 519, 559 & 606 of the land ad measuring 0.34, 046, 0.15, 7.55, 1.29, 0.15, 0.29 & 0.57 acres, respectively, total Khasra 8, area 10.80 acres situated at village Parsada, Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa.

Henceforth the parties shall be referred as per their description before the Court below.

Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of title against the defendants No.1 to 5 in respect of the land bearing Khasra Nos.112, 113, 137, 204, 231/1, 519, 559 & 606, area ad measuring 0.34, 046, 0.15, 7.55, 1.29, 0.15, 0.29 & 0.57 acres, respectively (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’), situated at village Parsada, Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa. Parties to the suit are related to each other being descendants of Rameshwar. The said Rameshwar had 2 sons and 2 daughters namely, Prithvipal Singh, Yogendrapal Singh, Vinita and Ranneeta. The plaintiffs are the sons of Prithvipal Singh whereas defendants No.2 to 5 are legal heirs of Yogendrapal Singh. The suit property was obtained by defendant No.1 Vinita (appellant herein) and Ranneeta (since deceased), daughters of Rameshwar under the mutual settlement, but they were minors at the time of settlement and therefore their names were entered in the revenue record as Minors through guardian Rameshwar (father). Ranneeta had expired without getting married.

Defendant No.1 Vinita Singh filed an application for deletion of the name of Ranneeta and also for recording her name in the revenue record before the Tehsildar, Akaltara after a long time of death of Ranneeta. Plaintiff Dipendra had filed objections on behalf of the plaintiffs and also prayed to enter the names of heirs of Prithvipal Singh and Yogenderapal Singh, as they are also legal heirs of deceased Ranneeta. But without affording any opportunity of hearing and without recording any evidence, the said objections were dismissed and the name of defendant No.1 Vinita Singh was directed to be entered in the revenue record vide order dated 17.12.2016.

The suit for declaration of title was filed stating that the order passed by the Tehsildar does not pass any title in favour of Vinita Singh and the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 5 are jointly held the title of possession in 5.40 acres of land, out of the suit property. Relief of permanent injunction has also been claimed to restrain the defendant Vinita Singh from alienating the suit property in favour of any other person. On the said grounds, it was prayed that the suit be decreed.

After receipt of the notice, defendant No.1 appeared before the Court below and filed her written statement denying the material facts of the plaint. She has further pleaded that Ranneeta was not the daughter of Rameshwar and therefore question of her death does not arise. The suit property has been obtained by defendant No.1 in a partial partition, which took place between her brothers namely, Yogendrapal and Prithvipal during the life time of her father and she is the only owner of the suit property inasmuch as the suit property was recorded in her name since 1954-55. The order passed by the Tehsildar, Akaltara on 17.11.2016 in respect of the suit property is legal and is in accordance with law. The suit preferred by the plaintiffs is time barred and, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Court below has framed the issues, viz. (1) whether deceased Ranneeta was daughter of Rameshwar Singh, (2) whether the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Tehsildar, Akaltara in revenue Case No.187/A-06/2015-16 is void ab initio, (2a) whether the suit preferred by the plaintiff is within limitation, (3) whether the plaintiff along with defendant No.2 has ownership over the suit land, (4) whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction against defendant No.1, (5) Relief.

In order to prove their case, plaintiff Sanjay Kumar Singh and Dipendra Kumar Singh have examined themselves as PW-1 & PW-3 respectively. They have also examined Sanjay Singh as PW-2 and Narendra Singh as PW-4. They have also tendered and exhibited the documents Ex.-P/1 to Ex.-P/6. Defendant No.1 Vinita Singh has examined herself as DW-1, Ramkumar Singh (DW-02), Paduman (DW-3), Manbodh (DW-4). She has also exhibited the documents Ex.-D/1 to Ex.-D/9.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court has decided the issue No.1, 2 & 2a in affirmative and the same were found to be proved and further decided the issue No.3 & 4 to be partly proved. The suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs, defendant No.1, defendants No.2 to 5 were held to be co-sharer in the suit property upto the extent of 1/3rd share of the suit property, 5.40 acres left by deceased Ranneeta.

10.Shri HV Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendant No.1 would submit that the plaintiffs/ respondents are claiming their title through deceased Ranneeta, who was the title holder of the suit land i.e. 5.40 acres, out of 10.80 ares, allotted to her by the father of the appellant in a family arrangement. Appellant/defendant No.1 has specifically contended that she is the only daughter of Rameshwar Singh and total land area 10.80 acres was allotted to her. The plaintiffs could not prove the date of birth and date of death of deceased Ranneeta and none of the witnesses has ever seen her. It is further submitted that the revenue entries may be presumed to be correct, but such presumption is rebuttable. The Tehsildar vide order dated 17.11.2016 (Ex.-P/5) has already corrected the revenue entries by deleting the name of said Ranneeta, which has attained finality. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the existence of deceased Ranneeta Singh. So, the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse and not sustainable. Learned counsel would place reliance on the judgment in the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Ltd and others AIR 2014 SC 937 to submit that the plaintiffs have to succeed only on the ground of their case and not on the weakness of the case set up by the defendants in a suit for declaration of title and possession.

11.On the other hand, Shri Somnath Verma, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5/plaintiffs would support the impugned judgment and decree. He would submit that the trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence and material brought on record by both the parties in its proper perspective has passed the impugned judgment and decree, which deserves to be affirmed. He would further submit that in Ex.-P/2 (record of Right of Land), the names of minor Ranneeta and minor Vinita (appellant herein), daughter of Rameshwar were mentioned and the said entry was recorded in the year 1954. Therefore, the Tehsildar, Akaltara, only on the application moved by the appellant, has erroneously passed the order (Ex.-P/5) on 17.11.2016, though vide Patwari report (Ex.-P/4), in genealogical tree, the relation of deceased Ranneeta as daughter of Rameshwar was shown. Therefore, the Appeal has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

12.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and decree including the record with utmost circumspection.

13.The real controversy involved in the present case revolves around the order passed by the Tehsildar, Akalatara on 17.11.2016 (Ex.-P/5) whereby on the application preferred by the appellant/ defendant No.1, correction was made in the revenue entries and the name of deceased Ranneeta was deleted, though in Ex.-P/2, which is the record of Rights of Lands pertaining to the year 1954, the names of Ranneeta and appellant herein were mentioned as minor daughters of Rameshwar. Before passing the order, the Tehsildar has also called a report from the Patwari, who has submitted its report vide Ex.-P/4, and in the family tree, the relation of deceased Ranneeta was shown. The Tehsildar, only on the basis that date of death of deceased Ranneeta was not established and ignoring the objections raised by the plaintiffs, has recorded a finding that no daughter namely, Ranneeta was ever born in the family of Rameshwar Singh. Indisputably, in Ex.-P/2, revenue entries were made more than 30 years ago in the year 1954. Therefore, considering the manner in which the name of deceased Ranneeta was directed to be deleted by Tehsildar by observing that she was not a daughter of Rameshwar and looking to the seriousness of the issue concerning title, in our opinion, instead of passing an order of correction, the parties could have been advised to raise the issue before the jurisdictional civil Court.

14.The learned trial Court while deciding the issue No.(1) has assigned cogent reasons and has rightly not taken adverse inference for non production of any documents concerning date of birth and death of deceased Ranneeta. In the old revenue entries in Ex.-P/1 & P/2 & Khasra B-1, for the year 2012-13, the name of deceased Ranneeta was mentioned along with the appellant herein. Considering the nature of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the finding that deceased Ranneeta was the daughter of Rameshwar Singh is found to be correct and there is no reason before us to take a different view of the matter. So, the said finding is affirmed.

15.For the foregoing, we hold that the plaintiffs, the appellant/defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 5 being the legal heirs of deceased Ranneeta are entitled for the suit property (5.40 acres) mutated in her name as co-sharer. The trial Court has rightly determined the share in issue No.3, at para-20 of the judgment, as per Section 15 (2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

16.With regard to said issue, it is profitable to reproduce Section 15(2) (a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:-

“Section 15(2) (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and”

17.Further, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 lays down general rules of succession in the case of males and it provides that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class-I of the Schedule.

18.In the case at hand, it is not disputed that the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 4 are grand children, and defendant No.5 is the daughter-in-law of deceased Rameshwar Singh, who is the father of defendant No.1 (appellant herein) and deceased Ranneeta. So the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 5 are claiming their rights on the suit property through their father Prithvipal Singh and Yogendrapal Singh, who were sons of Rameshwar Singh, and Vinita Singh (appellant herein) is the daughter of Rameshwar Singh. Therefore, both sons and daughters are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 5 (each co-sharer) are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property.

19.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit partly in favour of the plaintiffs and we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the trial Court and we affirm the finding recorded by the trial Court.

20.Resultantly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, with no costs.

21.A decree be drawn up accordingly.