SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sarabjit Singh vs Ramandeep Kaur And Others on 17 February, 2020

CM No.3050-CII of 2020 in/and
CR No.392 of 2020 (OM)


Date of decision: 17.02.2020
CM No.3050-CII of 2020 in/and
CR No.392 of 2020 (OM)

Sarabjit Singh …Petitioner


Ramandeep Kaur others …Respondents


Present: Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.


CM No.3050-CII of 2020

1. Application is allowed.

2. The fresh affidavit of the petitioner in place of the earlier one is

accepted and taken on record.

CR No.392 of 2020 (OM)

1. Order II Rule 2 CPC was not designed in 1908 for matrimonial

matters stricto sensu as they were hardly in existence in litigation at the turn

of the century among the Hindus. This salutary jurisprudential provision was

incorporated in the Code to guard against the same parties litigating under

the same title on the same cause of action, directly or substantially,

piecemeal by calling upon them to claim all the available reliefs and cause/s

of action in one proceeding to prevent multifarious and vexatious litigation

on the principle that all available reliefs and prayers must be claimed in one

action. Otherwise, it would lead to litigation never coming to an end

multiplicity of suits. Therefore the bar was crated. Order II Rule 2 is meant

1 of 6
15-03-2020 08:50:58 :::
CM No.3050-CII of 2020 in/and
CR No.392 of 2020 (OM)

for ordinary civil rights to property, private and public rights etcetera, and

not to those rights which remain kinetic and ever changing such as in

matrimonial disputes where a change of circumstance or a fact or subsequent

event can change the entire aspect of the case. I would, therefore, not

interfere with the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Ludhiana on 16.07.2019 dismissing the petitioning defendant’s application

claiming bar of Order II Rule 2 CPC.

2. Looking to the facts, a few things may be said which are

relevant for the purposes of determining this petition. The petitioner –

Sarabjit Singh is the husband litigating against his wife – Baljit Kaur and his

two minor daughters Ramandeep Kaur and Harashdeep Kaur. The

subsequent suit has been filed by Baljit Kaur and two daughters against

Sarabjit Singh claiming that the suit property by nature is ancestral and they

had the right of inheritance, which dispute was subject matter of previous


3. The first suit was filed by the wife and her two daughters for

creation of charge on specific khasra numbers, which was allowed vide

judgment and decree 02.07.2014 (Annex P-1). The second suit was again

instituted by Baljit Kaur and her two daughters saying that the land sold by

the petitioner in the name of his mother is fabricated and vitiated by fraud,

which stands dismissed by judgment and decree dated 21.01.2016.

4. This revision arises out of the third suit filed by the two minor

daughters alone against the father, grand-mother and brother of the petitioner

saying that the suit land which was subject matter of the previous suits are

ancestral to them. In view of this, it cannot be said that in the third suit there

should be placed any bar on the daughters of the petitioner for claiming their

2 of 6
15-03-2020 08:50:58 :::
CM No.3050-CII of 2020 in/and
CR No.392 of 2020 (OM)

rights by inheritance coming from the father. This is despite the challenge to

the sale deed brought by mother and daughters executed between the father

and his mother transferring property to her. Ramandeep Kaur and Harshdeep

Kaur were plaintiffs No.2 3 respectively in the second suit [Case

No.38349 of 2013 instituted on 11.11.2010 and decided on 21.01.2016] in

which the following prayer was made:

“Suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed bearing
vasika No.5112 dated 13.08.2010 executed by defendant No.1
in favour of defendant No.2 regarding the land measuring 10
Kanal, 0 Marla, out of land, comprised in Khasra No.4//2/1,
3/2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 22, 23, 19, 9//3/2, 7/2, 8/1, (78-1), 9//4/2,
5/1, 6/2, 7/1, 14/2, 15, 16, 17/1, 24/2, 25, 15//4/3, 5/1, (59-1)
Khata No.13/14, 14/15, as per jamabandi for the year 2007-
2008 situated at village Dolon Khurd, Hadbast 287, Tehsil
and District Ludhiana and mutation thereof are void, illegal
and are of no legal consequence as against the rights of the
plaintiffs in the suit property.

Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.2
from further leasing/patta the land for evacuation/digging of
sand and soil and earth and from further alienating the land
subject matter of sale deed bearing vasika No.5112 dated
13.08.2010 on the basis of oral and documentary evidence.”

5. In the present suit, the prayer is to the following effect:

“Suit for declaration to the effect that the land detailed as

(i) 1/18 share in land measuring 0-2 Marlas comprised in
Khata No.11/12, Killa No.125/1/1/2;

(ii) 1/6 share in land measuring 0-6 Marlas comprised in
Khata No.12/13, Killa No.228, 229;

(iii) 1/3 share in 740/1561 share in land measuring 78
Kanal 1 Marla comprised in Khata No.13/14, Kill No.4//2/1,
3/2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 22, 23, 19, 9//3/2, 7/2, 8/1;

3 of 6
15-03-2020 08:50:58 :::
CM No.3050-CII of 2020 in/and
CR No.392 of 2020 (OM)

(iv) 1/3 share in 197/1181 share in land measuring 59
Kanal 1 Marla comprised in Khata No.14/15, Killa No.9//4/2,
5/1, 6/2, 7/1, 14/2, 15, 16, 17/1, 24/2, 25, 15//4/3, 5/1;

(v) 1/3 share in 1/24 share in land measuring 0 Kanal 11
Marla comprised in Khata No.181/2201, Killa No.14//24,
As per jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 situated at village
Dolon Khurd, Tehsil and District Ludhiana is ancestral
coparcernary property in the hands of defendants and the
plaintiffs being coparceners have interest/title in the aforesaid

Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1
2 from alienating or disposing of any portion of the suit
land in any manner whatsoever, on the basis of oral and
documentary evidence.”

6. The daughters contend that the land owned by the petitioner-

father is ancestral coparcenary property in which they have a right, which

land is besides the land sold by Sarabjit Singh to his mother. Therefore, there

is no overlapping.

7. Learned counsel submits that the land falling beneath the sale

deed is also mentioned in the third suit. This fact can be determined only

upon evidence led by the parties and it is not a case where the suit can be

thrown out under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the bar of Order II Rule 2 CPC.

8. On a query put, learned counsel stated that husband and wife

are locked in a matrimonial battle.

9. The relevant observations of the trial court declining the

application under Order II Rule 2 reads as follows:

“4. The suit in which the present application has been
filed, is subsequent to the suit titled as “Baljit Kaur and others
Vs. Sarabjit Singh and another” bearing No.96 of 11.05.2010
was with regard to the relief of recovery of Rs.15,000/- under
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and for creating charge

4 of 6
15-03-2020 08:50:58 :::
CM No.3050-CII of 2020 in/and
CR No.392 of 2020 (OM)

upon the suit property. The another litigation having title
“Baljit Kaur Vs. Sarabjit Singh and other” case No.38349 of
2013 was with regard to declaration regarding the annulment
of sale deed dated 13.08.2010 executed by Sarabjit Singh in
favour of Surjit Kaur. Both the litigations were decided and
their fate has not been disputed by the parties. It is also not
disputed between the parties to the suit that parties to both the
suits are not the same. However, reliefs sought in all the suits
are different. It is also not disputed that both the suits have
been filed on different causes of action. Present suit pertains
to the relief of declaration qua the ownership on the suit
property by claiming it to be coparcenery property. The
matter in issue in both the suits, is entirely different and
unless the court finds that the matter in issue in all the suits is
same, the proceedings cannot be stayed by invoking the
power of Section 10 CPC. So, the reliefs sought in all the
suits are also different and further the applicant/defendant has
also failed to prima facie make out that the matter in issue in
all the suits is directly and substantially the same and decision
in the former suit will operate as res judicata in the present
suit, as required u/s 10 CPC to stay the proceedings.”

10. Learned counsel submits that remarks have been made in the

impugned order (supra) which appear to sound conclusive findings at the

interim stage as are contained in paragraph 4 of the impugned order, as

reproduced above. He can be rest assured that nothing said by the trial court

is to the prejudice of the petitioner or he is bound by, as he will have full

liberty to produce his evidence in defence of the suit. However, no final

opinion can be expressed without parties admitting evidence on file. This is

what the order dated 16.07.2019 would actually mean.

11. To sum up, these are triable issues presented in the third suit the

fate of which will depend on the trial and the issues to be struck after the

5 of 6
15-03-2020 08:50:58 :::
CM No.3050-CII of 2020 in/and
CR No.392 of 2020 (OM)

defendant’s written statement is put in and the evidence adduced by the

disputing parties.

12. No grounds to interfere with the impugned order are made out

there being apparently no mistake, error or material irregularity and illegality

committed by the learned trail court in coming to the conclusion that trial

cannot be aborted by the bar of law in Order II Rule 2 CPC.

13. The petition is accordingly dismissed, needless to say, without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case as they are yet to be



Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

6 of 6
15-03-2020 08:50:58 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation