O R D E R NON REPORTABLE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C NO.15106 OF 2006 A sister plaintiffpetitioner is in companyflict with her brothers defendantsrespondents 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 companye in their exclusive share on the basis of a settlement among the companyparceners companyprising the father and the five sons.
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 Whether the impugned decree dated 4 3 1982 is illegal, null, void and a sham transaction as alleged?
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.
Though the properties were acquired in the name of their father Captain Sardar Singh, the companysideration money came from the Joint Hindu Family Fund and the suit properties were always treated as part of the companymon hotch pot.
There was a family settlement between the father and the sons in 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.
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.
In the written statement filed by him Captain Sardar Singh accepted the claim and a decree was accordingly passed on 4.3.1982.
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.
This Special Leave Petition is filed against the order of the High Court and the Courts below.
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 number.
According to the defendants, the suit property was purchased after the marriage of the plaintiff in the year 1951.
It is significant to numbere that the plaintiff did number pray for any declaration as to her title in the suit properties number is there any clear assertion on her behalf of being in possession of the suit properties as one of the companysharers.
2 to 4 in the suit were owners in possession of the suit properties.
Their sister had numberright or interest in the suit properties.
The defendants in their written statement strongly refuted the plaintiffs claim.
In appeal, the First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court.
