GURMAIL SINGH Vs. JIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I dispose of the appeal as well as the applications under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. moved by the defendant-appellants. The appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.1998 passed by Addl. District Judge, Rupnagar, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1992 passed by the trial Court which decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for declaration as prayed for.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- Plaintiff Gurmail Singh filed a suit for declaration that he along with defendants No. 1 and 2 was owner in joint possession to the extent of 1/3rd share of the land comprised in khewat/khatauni and khasra numbers as described in the head note of the plaint situated in village Sohali and Tirtha and that the sale deed dated 10.10.1986 executed by defendants No. 3 and 4 is void, illegal and not binding upon him. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he and defendant No. 2 Jit Singh are real brothers and sons of Chet Singh alias Ghulla alias Gurmukh Singh son of Lalu. They constitute a joint Hindu family. The suit property in the hands of Chet Singh is ancestral, who inherited the same from his father Lalu alias Lal Singh. They have got share in the suit property by birth. The defendant No. 1 had no right to alienate the suit property in favour of respondent-defendants No. 3 and 4 except for legal necessity. The sale deed dated 10.10.1986 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 is null and void and it does not bind the rights of the plaintiff, who is a co-sharer in the ancestral property. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that there was no joint Hindu family property in the hands of Chet Singh. They denied the other allegations levelled by the plaintiff and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. Defendants No. 3 and 4 also filed a separate written statement and they pleaded that they are the bona fide purchasers for consideration and thus the sale in question cannot be set aside.

(3.) THE parties led oral and documentary evidence is support of their cases and it was held by the Courts below the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 constitute a joint Hindu family and the property in question was the ancestral one in the hands of appellant No. 1 Chet Singh. It was also observed by the Courts below that the plaintiff had interest by birth in the suit property being a coparcenary and the sale deed dated 10.10.1986 is null and void and does not bind the interest of the plaintiff. The reasons for the dismissal of appeal are given in paras No. 12 to 21 of the judgment of the first Appellate Court, which are reproduced as under :-