JAI DEV SINGH Vs. SUJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintill's appeal. His suit for declaration and injunction against his two brothers and mother was dismissed byjudgment dated 12/11/1969 by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi,Plaintiff sought a decree that it be declared that property bearing No. 36/15,Tihar II, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi, comprising 2-1/2 storeyed and built ona plot of land measuring 100 sq. yards was a joint property of the plaintiffand his two brothers, defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff also sought permanentinjunction restraining the first defendant from disposing of the suit propertywithout the express concurrence in writing of the plaintiff and the otherbrother, defendant No. 2.

(2.) The principal contesting defendant was defendant No. 1 SujanSingh in whose name the property was standing. During the pendency of thesuit Sujan Singh died and so also the mother of the parties Parmeshwari Devibut not before they had appeared as witnesses during the trial. Defendants2 and 3 were ex pane. They appeared as witnesses, however. DefendantNo. 2 Rawal Chand supported his brother Sujan Singh: Parmeshwari Devi,their mother, however, supported the plaintiff in their respective statements.

(3.) The plaintiff alleged that he, his two brothers and mothermigrated from Pakistan. His father had expired in Pakistan. He saidthe aforesaid properly was allotted to the parties as a rehabilitationmeasure and since Sujan Singh, the first defendant, was major and theplaintiff and defendant No. 2 as minors, the property was allotted inthe name of Sujan Singh. At that time it consisted only of one built up singlestorey room. Thereafter with the contribution of all the brothers 2-1/2storeyed house was built. There were disputes among the parties. APanchayat of elders was formed who settled the dispute and recorded theterms of settlement on 7/11/1965 Under this family settlement theplaintiff and the second defendant Rawel Chand were to own and remaip inphysical possession and enjoyment of the ground floor of the property andthe defendant Sujan Singh was entitled to the physical possession and enjoyment of the remaining house other than the ground floor. Mother of theparties, defendant No. 3, was to be entitled to living and maintenance fromthe plaintiff and Rawal Chand. The parties were also liable to individuallypay off the loan raised by them, if any, and the household effects were to bepartitioned by the parties themselves and it was said that in case there wasany difficulty on that score assistance of the respectables would be procuredfor that purpose, plaintiff then alleged that this family arrangement waspartly acted upon and the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 were in physicalpossession and enjoyment of the ground floor. Cause of action to file the suitarose when Sujan Singh started quarreling with the plaintiff and other twodefendants and disowning the family arrangement. It is alleged that be wasalso manipulating to dispose of the suit property fraudulently, thus deprivingthe other parties of their valuable rights therein. Plaintiff claimed the suitproperty to be joint property and parties bound by the terms of the aforesaidfamily arrangement. As noted above, defendant No. 2 Rawel Chand andmother Parmeshwari Devi were proceeded ex parte. First defendant SujanSingh filed his written statement. He disputed the case set up by the plaintiff.He raised many preliminary objections and said the property was governedby the provisions of tlie Displaced Persons (Compensntion and Rehabilitation) Act and that jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred He said property was allotted in his own right and none of the defendants has any right,title or concern in the same. He said family arrangement was forced uponhim and it has even otherwise no legal sanctity. In short the case of the firstdefendant was that the conveyance deed and lease deed of the property inquestion was granted to him in his sole name as owner by the authoritiesunder the Displaced Persons (.Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. He saidclaim was made betore these authorities and each of the defendants gotRs. 919.00 in cash as his/her respective share of compensation but the plaintiffinstead of getting that compensation got the allotment of the house inquestion which was at Rs. 1670.69. The balance of the amount after deducting Rs. 919.00 was payable in instalments which the first defendant said waspaid by him.