SANJAY GUPTA Vs. MANJU GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal. He had filed a suit for declaration pleading that he along with his parents and brother, i.e., defendant Nos. 1 to 3, constituted a Joint Hindu Family; that the factory premises as described in the plaint was the property of Joint Hindu Family; that it was occupied by M/S Hemco Industries (P) Ltd., who was impleaded as defendant No. 7, as tenant at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month; that the alleged transfer of this property by his father in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 6 was not binding on him and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in any manner whatsoever; that the property in dispute was purchased by defendant No. 1 on 22.7.1964; that on 29.3,1968, a declaration was made by defendant No. 1-Om Parkash to the Income Tax Department that this property belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family (for short, 'the HUF') and was on rent with defendant No. 7 at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per month and that since then, the suit property has been assessed to income tax as property of the HUF. It was averred that defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are alleging themselves to be the owners of a portion of the suit property on the basis of some transfers effected by defendant No. 1 and that in fact, no sale or transfer took place and even if the same is proved, the same is illegal, null & void and without consideration and not binding on their rights as he had no right to sell or transfer the suit property without legal necessity.

(2.) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 appeared and filed their written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 4 contested the suit and claimed that the same was liable to be dismissed in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for brevity, 'the Act') as it was a suit for mere declaration without the specific relief of possession and that it was barred by time. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 had purchased 16 kanals and 8 marlas of land in his individual capacity and was in exclusive possession of the same before a part thereof was sold to him and another portion was acquired by the Punjab State Electricity Board for construction of a road. It was denied that the suit property was HUF property. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 had always been treating this property to be his individual property and the plaintiff was fully aware that he had sold 71 marlas out of the suit property to defendant No. 4 through seven sale deeds which were registered in the year 1982. Defendant No. 4 had averred that in the year 1983, he had sold the property which was purchased by him from defendant No. 1 vide eight different sale deeds registered in favour of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 and the possession thereof was handed over to them which was to the knowledge of the plaintiff and no objection was raised by him. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6, in their separate written statement, also denied the status of the suit property being HUF property and pleaded more or less similarly on the lines of defendant No. 4. It was also pleaded by them that they were bona fide purchasers for consideration.

(3.) The trial Court framed the following issues: