GURBACHAN SINGH (DEAD) Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeals stand filed against a judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Regular Second Appeal number 283 of 1984 dtd. 18/2/2010(Hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Judgment") and in RA-RS-42-C of 2010 and Civil Misc. No.6287-C of 2010 dtd. 28/5/2010 by which the court in such jurisdiction set aside the concurrent findings returned by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar in Civil Appeal No.248 of 1981 dtd. 1/8/1981 and by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Jullundur ( now Jalandhar) in Civil Suit No.186 of 1981 dtd. 24/9/1981.

(2.) The crux of these appeals lies in a property dispute wherein one of the two brothers namely, Faqir Singh had allegedly sold off the portion of property belonging to him that his brother Gurbachan Singh and he inherited from their father namely Suchet Singh who died intestate in the year 1942. Gurcharan Singh (Respondent herein/plaintiff) bought a piece of land belonging to Faqir Singh measuring 4 marlas vide sale deed dtd. 19/12/1978(Hereinafter referred to as "disputed property") for a consideration of Rs.6000..00Thereafter, he was put in possession of such land however, it was forcibly taken by the Appellant Gurbachan Singh who stated that since Faqir Singh did not have any exclusive title or possession over the suit property, he could not purport to sell the same.

(3.) The Respondent (Gurcharan Singh) filed a suit for possession over such disputed property before the SubJudge 1st Class, Jullundur ( now Jalandhar ) , who, having considered the evidence led, framed certain issues and returned findings in favour of the Appellant (Gurbachan Singh) herein. On 1st appeal, the learned Additional District Judge upheld the judgement rendered by the court below on two grounds viz. that there is no document on record to prove that the disputed property had been given to Faqir Singh in a family partition; and that if Suchet Singh had indeed affected partition 50 or 60 years ago, then there should have been an entry in the revenue record to that effect, however, no such entry is to be found. Impugned Judgement