(Arun Mishra and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.)
Raj Kumari and another ___________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Ravinder Kumar (Deceased) through Lrs. and others ____ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 21826-21827 of 2017 [Arising from SLP(C) Nos. 12188-12189/2017], decided on December 13, 2017
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.:—
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 21.10.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 2636 of 2009 (O&M) and 3664 of 2009 (O&M), by which the concurrent judgments of the trial Court, as well as, the first appellate Court are set aside.
3. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are:
Civil Suit bearing No. RT-23 of 1997 was filed at the instance of Lekh Raj and Raksha Devi daughter of Kishan Dass seeking a declaration qua execution of two sale deeds dated 23.05.1996 Ex. D2 and Ex. D3 measuring 9 kanals 5 marlas situated in village Bani executed by Kishan Dass and Lekh Raj jointly in favour of Ravinder Kumar. The very suit also prayed for a declaration in respect of the land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas of village Ganguwal.
4. The trial Court, as well as, the first appellate Court decreed the suit. As mentioned supra, the High Court in the afore-mentioned two regular second appeals, set aside the judgments of the trial Court, as well as, the first appellate Court and dismissed the suit.
5. According to the plaintiffs, they were the joint owners in possession of the total suit land measuring 15 kanals 17 marlas. The suit land situated at village Ganguwal was the ancestral land inherited by plaintiff no. 1 and father of plaintiff no. 2 from their father and was being used jointly by them for their residence, whereas the suit land situated at village Bani was the self acquired property of plaintiff no. 1 and father of plaintiff no. 2.
6. However, it is the case of defendant no. 1 that the sale deeds were executed for a valuable consideration which was paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs before the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deeds in the presence of attesting witnesses. Defendant no. 1 sold a part of the suit land to defendant no. 4. However, some contradictory stands were also taken by the defendants later.
7. Be that as it may, it may not be necessary for us to go in detail on the subject involved in these appeals, inasmuch as we find that the matters need to be re-considered by the High Court, since the High Court has ignored the vital averments made in the plaint while dismissing the suit. On going through the material on record, it is disclosed that the High Court has not only ignored the vital pleadings but also ignored the important material on record. So also, it has failed to consider the question of law involved in the matter. The High Court has also not assigned any reason, much less valid reason, to disturb the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.
8. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, it would be just and proper to remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, we accept these appeals only on the grounds mentioned in the preceding paragraph, set aside the judgment dated 21.10.2016 passed by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 2636 of 2009 (O&M) and 3664 of 2009 (O&M) and remit the matter to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh for a fresh disposal, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Civil Appeal No(s). 21826-21827/2017 @ SLP(C) Nos. 12188-12189/2017
Raj Kumari and Another __________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Ravinder Kumar (Deceased) through Lrs. and Others ____ Respondent(s)
Date : 13-12-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
(Before Arun Mishra and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
9. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar pronounced the Non-Reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and His Lordship.
10. Leave granted.
11. The appeals are accepted in terms of the signed Non-Reportable judgment.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
———
