http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil)  15106 of 2006

PETITIONER: Shakuntala

RESPONDENT: Lt.Col.Mukhtiar Singh & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/04/2008

BENCH: A.K. Mathur & Aftab Alam

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R NON-REPORTABLE

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.15106 OF 2006

1.      A sister (plaintiff\026petitioner) is in conflict with her  brothers (defendants\026respondents) over certain landed  properties in Rohtak which, according to her belonged to their  father Captain Sardar Singh and which after his demise  devolved on his children in equal shares, her own share being  one-sixth. The brothers resisted her claim by taking the plea  that the suit properties, though acquired in the name of their  father, were in reality Joint Hindu Family properties and had  come in their exclusive share on the basis of a settlement  among the co-parceners comprising the father and the five sons.  Their sister had no right or interest in the suit properties. The  Trial Court on consideration of a vast volume of evidences  recorded all the findings in favour of the defendants and against  the plaintiff.  In appeal, the First Appellate Court affirmed the  findings of the Trial Court.  In Second Appeal, the High Court  considered the plaintiff’s case and her challenge to the decrees  of the Courts below in some detail but came to find and hold  that the appeal did not raise any question of law, much less a  substantial question of law.  The High Court, accordingly,  dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage.  This  Special Leave Petition is filed against the order of the High  Court and the Courts below.

2.      The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction  restraining the defendants from interfering with her joint  possession of the suit properties and from transferring the suit  properties or changing their nature in any way.  It is significant  to note that the plaintiff did not pray for any declaration as to  her title in the suit properties nor is there any clear assertion on  her behalf of being in possession of the suit properties as one of  the co-sharers.

3.      The defendants in their written statement strongly refuted  the plaintiff’s claim.  According to the defendants, the suit  property was purchased after the marriage of the plaintiff in the  year 1951.  Though the properties were acquired in the name of  their father Captain Sardar Singh, the consideration money  came from the Joint Hindu Family Fund and the suit properties   were always treated as part of the common hotch-pot.  There  was a family settlement between the father and the sons in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

which he was given some other village properties in lieu of his  share in the suit properties and the suit properties came in the  exclusive share of the five sons.  Later on, in the year 1971, one  of the sons filed a suit impleading the father and the other four  brothers as defendants praying for a declaration that the  plaintiff and his other four brothers (defendant nos. 2 to 4 in the  suit) were owners in possession of the suit properties.  In the  written statement filed by him Captain Sardar Singh accepted  the claim and a decree was accordingly passed on 4.3.1982.   Captain Sardar Singh thus voluntarily and willingly suffered the  decree by which the suit property was held to be in the  exclusive ownership and possession of his five sons.  He lived  for a long-time after the decree was passed and before his death  he also executed a will leaving the suit properties to his sons.  

4.      In light of the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court  framed a number of issues of which 1,3 and 4 are significant;  those are as follows:- "1.     Whether the impugned decree dated 4-3-1982 is  illegal, null, void and a sham transaction as  alleged? OPD.

2.     xxx             xxx             xxx             xxx              

3.     Whether the suit property was purchased by the  father of the plaintiff and defendants, Capt. Sardar  Singh, as Karta of the J.H.F.? OPD.

4.     Whether deceased Sardar Singh had executed any  valid will in respect of his property as alleged? If  so, its effects? OPD".

5.     xxx             xxx             xxx             xxx

6.     xxx             xxx             xxx             xxx

7.     xxx             xxx             xxx             xxx"                  5.      Both sides led evidences in support of their respective  cases.  It is, however, significant to note that the plaintiff  herself did not come to depose before the Court and in her place  her husband holding power of attorney on her behalf came as  one of the plaintiff’s witness.  On a consideration of the entire  evidence the Trial Court recorded its findings on the aforesaid  issues in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.  In  appeal the judgment was affirmed and the second appeal too  preferred before the High Court, as noted above, was dismissed.  

6.      Before this Court no one appeared on behalf of the  defendants - respondents.  The plaintiff appeared in person but  she did not make any oral submissions, instead she filed a long  written submission.

7.      In the written submission the Court is told that her father  was strongly opposed to the custom of dowry and ardently  campaigned against it.  Consequently, at the time of the  plaintiff’s marriage he did not give her anything by way of  dowry.  The implication is that she must have her due share in  her father’s properties.

8.      Further, in the written submission an attempt is made to  reappraise the evidences all over again and to point out that the  Trial Court and the First Appellate Court arrived at wrong and  incorrect findings of fact.  The decree in the earlier suit and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Will executed by Captain Sardar Singh in favour of the sons are  assailed on the very same grounds which were considered by  the Courts below and rightly rejected.   

9.      On going through the judgments and orders of the Courts  below, the other materials on record and the written submission  submitted by the plaintiff we, unfortunately,  find that there is  absolutely no scope for any interference in this matter.  The  Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed but with no  orders as to costs.