S DARSHAN SINGH Vs. S DIDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RSA 11/2003 is directed against the order dated 24.12.2002 of the Additional District Judge in RCA 12/2001 whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order of the trial court dated 31.07.2001 whereby the learned Judge has decreed the suit for declaration and consequential relief of perpetual injunction.

(2.) Facts of the case as noted by the Civil Judge are as follows:- "In brief, the case of the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint is that S.Sant Singh, defendant No.2, father of the plaintiff as well as of the defendants No.1, 3 and 4 was a displaced person from Pakistan. He had left property in West Pakistan and in lieu thereof he was granted compensation by the Rehabilitation Department. He was also given a Refugee Card by the Government. In Delhi he started a milk shop after migration and settled initially at Siddi Pura and thereafter at Moti Nagar on the allotment of Property No.F-18(A.B.), Moti Nagar, New Delhi. Defendant No.1 was employed as an attendant in the Agricultural Department on a salary of Rs.50/- per month. Defendant No.1 is the eldest amongst the sons of Defendant No.2.

(3.) It is alleged by the plaintiff that defendant No.2 got his claim from the Rehabilitation Department and transferred the same in the name of his son S.Darshan Singh, Defendant No.1 in order to get the property No.F-18(A.B.), Moti Nagar, New Delhi on perpetual lease from defendant no.5. It is also alleged that S.Sant Singh purchased other claims and also paid the balance amount of Rs.660/- towards the total consideration for the suit property from his own earnings and savings. It is further claimed that entire investments for the purchase of lease hold rights of the property in question was of defendant No.2 because his house in Lyalpur (West Pakistan) was his personal/self acquired property where he was doing his business. It is alleged that the property was taken at the cost, instance and assistance of defendant no.2 for the benefit of all of his sons on the assurance of the defendant no.1 that he would give equal rights and shares to his younger brothers.