BALWINDER SINGH Vs. AMAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.1987, passed by the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge, Ludhiana, who accepted the appeal of Amar Kaur, plaintiff-respondent by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30.9.1985 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of the land measuring 2 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 1141 min and also granted a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant-appellants from interfering in the ownership and enjoyment rights of the plaintiff-respondent with respect to the land measuring 24 bighas as fully described in the head note of the plaint. It may be mentioned here that earlier the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner :-

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 are sons of defendant No. 3. According to these defendants, the suit land was previously owned by Kartar Singh alias Dinger, father of defendant No. 3. Plaintiff is wife of the said Kartar Singh. Defendants have further asserted that defendants No. 1 and 2 have become the owner of the suit land on the basis of the sale deed executed by their grand father Kartar Singh. The suit land was given to the plaintiff by the defendants under a compromise for her maintenance only. Thus, she acquired no ownership rights in it. However, the defendants admitted that a civil suit was filed by the plaintiff against her husband Kartar Singh and a compromise decree was passed by the Court of Shri S.K. Chopra, the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana, and the said decree was subsequently corrected on 21.2.1981 by the Court of Shri D.S. Chatha, as there was some clerical mistake. It is denied by the defendants that they have taken the possession of the land measuring 2 bighas. According to the defendants, the entire land measuring 24 bighas is still in the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the question of restoration of the possession of 2 bighas of land does not arise. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was only made a limited owner under the compromise decree dated 31.5.1979 corrected on 21.2.1981 and she could enjoy the fruits of the possession under the said compromise in lieu of her maintenance whereas the ownership always remained with defendants No. 1 and 2. The defendants further alleged that in fact the plaintiff wanted to alienate the land. Defendants No. 1 and 2 requested the plaintiff not to alienate the property. The suit has been filed simply to harass defendants No. 1 and 2 so that the plaintiff may conveniently sell the property.