JOGINDER SINGH Vs. JOGINDERO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated March 12, 1982 in Regular Second Appeal No. 172/1972 reversing the judgment and decree dated 11-1-1972 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar in Civil Appeal No. 307/1971 and restoring the judgment and decree dated 1-2-1969 passed by the Sub-Judge, Class II, Taran-Taran in case No. 32/1967.

(2.) Smt. Jogindero alias Gindo and Smt. Chhindo, plaintiffs / respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughters of Smt. Soman, defendant / respondent No. 4, Shingara Singh, plaintiff / respondent No. 3 is sister's son of Smt. Soman. The land in suit as admeasuring 60 kanals and 17 marlas belonged to Smt. Soman. According to the plaintiffs, Smt. Soman, defendant / respondent No. 4 made a gift of said land in favour of the plaintiffs by a registered gift deed dated April 12, 1960 with delivery of possession. The defendant No. 1 Surain Singh (who died during the pendency of the Second Appeal before the High Court and is represented by his legal representatives) and Bur Singh, defendant No. 2 / respondent No. 5 herein are tenants in respect of the suit land under defendant No. 4, Smt. Soman. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 with the connivance of the revenue authorities got their own name mutated on April 17, 1967 in the revenue records and declined to admit the claim of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the plaintiffs instituted the suit for possession of the land.

(3.) The defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 resisted the plaintiffs suit by contending that Smt. Soman, defendant No. 4 after the death of her husband, Gujjar Singh, had remarried and, therefore, Smt. Soman had no subsisting right, title or interest in the property in dispute. They also denied that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughters of Smt. Soman from her late husband Gujjar Singh. The relationship of the plaintiff No. 3. Shingara Singh with Smt. Soman and her husband was also denied. They further took the plea that no gift deed as alleged by the plaintiffs was ever executed in their favour and even if Smt. Soman had executed any such deed of gift the same was not binding on the defendants as Smt. Soman had no subsisting right in the said land. They took the stand that they were cultivating the land as owners thereof and not as tenant.