JAGGA SINGH Vs. SURJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURJEET Singh and others instituted suit for partition by metes and bounds of plot measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas as detailed in the heading of the plaint. They claimed specific portion of their 930/3095 share. They claimed that they be put in possession of specific portion, which became allotted to them in partition proceedings. They further sought injunction against Sampuran Singh and others from alienating any specific portion thereof and in excess of their share and also sought injunction against them restraining them from dispossessing them from any portion by way of raising construction. It was alleged in the plaint that the land measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas was joint of the parties and no partition of any kind had taken place between them. Plaintiffs have 930/3095 share. It was further alleged that AC 2nd Grade had kept the suit land as joint being gairmumkin in partition proceedings.

(2.) DEFENDANTS No. 2 to 7 contested the suit of the plaintiffs urging that they are not owners nor in possession of any portion of the suit land. They have moved an application before AC 2nd Grade, Dabwali titled Sukhdev Singh etc. v. Sampuran Singh etc. for partition of the agricultural land jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the suit and the plaintiffs themselves had stated in para 3 of additional objection of "Naksha Be" filed on 29.5.93 before the AC 2nd Grade Dabwali that they had already excess share of gairmumkin land and they were not in possession of gairmumkin land and they were also not entitled to the gairmumkin land. The said partition proceedings are still pending. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs had no concern or connection whatsoever with the gairmumkin land which is the suit land. Sampuran Singh defendant was owner in possession of 1 kanal. Sukhdev Singh etc. defendants 2 to 5 were owners in possession in equal share of 2 K 2 M and Jagair Singh and Nirmal Singh defendants 6 and 7 were owners in possession of 2 K 2 M in equal share. They (Sukhdev Singh etc. defendants 2 to 7) and Sampuran Singh defendant constructed the suit land and were in possession at the spot. Revenue record showing plaintiffs to be co-sharers in the suit land was wrong, against law, facts and the rights of defendants 2 to 7 and was liable to be ignored.

(3.) JAGGA Singh defendant No. 4 went in appeal. Additional District Judge, Sirsa dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21.5.99. Still not satisfied, Jagga Singh defendant has knocked the door of this Court through this regular second appeal.