KULDIP SINGH Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the property mentioned in Schedule 'C' to the plaint. It was alleged that the property mentioned in Schedule 'C' was bequeathed to the plaintiff as well as to the defendant No. 3 by their grandfather, Sri Balwant Singh, on the basis of a Will dated 6.8.1946. It was also alleged, that, from the income from these properties, the father of the plaintiff, i.e., defendant No. 2 had purchased other properties, which are mentioned in Schedule 'B' to the plaint. It was alleged that these properties were illegally purchased by the defendant No. 2 in his own name, whereas, it should have been purchased in the name of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3. It was also alleged that the father of the defendant No. 2 entered into an agreement to sell on the basis of which, the defendant No. 2 was required to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3, but instead of executing a sale deed in their favour, the defendant No. 2 executed a registered sale deed dated 26.10.1959, selling the property mentioned in Schedule 'C to the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff contended that the defendant No, 2 had no right or title to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1. It may be stated here that the properties mentioned in Schedule 'C' includes the properties mentioned In Schedule 'A' and 'B' Hence the suit for permanent injunction was filed.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 contested the suit and contended that he was a bona fide purchaser for value and that the Will set up by the plaintiff was a forged and a fictitious document. The defendant No. 1, contended, that pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 26.10.1959, the defendant No. 2 became his tenant and that he was paying the rent. The defendant No. 2 fell in arrears of rent and accordingly the defendant No. 1 instituted a suit for recovery of rent and for ejectment against defendant No. 2. The Suit No. 120 of 1963 was decreed on 19th November, 1963. It was contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff was filed in order to circumvent the decree passed in Suit No. 120 of 1963. The defendant No. 2 did not appear nor contested the suit.