GURCHARAN SINGH AND ORS Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.2.1987, passed by the learned lower appellate Court, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration, that land measuring 51 kanals and 11 marlas situated within the revenue limits of village Bora Mal and half share in the land measuring 18 kanals and 1 marla situated within the revenue limits of village Budhpura, is a coparcenary property of the plaintiff and that the decree dated 2.8.1983, passed in civil suit No. 435 dated 6.8.1983, suffered by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Mutation No. 4918 dated 23.9.1983 sanctioned on the said decree was also challenged. The suit land was claimed to be ancestral coparcenary property of the plaintiff qua the defendants. The plaintiff had filed a suit in the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Mansa, for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 3 from alienating the suit land. By way of temporary injunction defendant No. 3 was restrained from alienating the property. In violation of injunction order, defendant No. 3 suffered a decree under challenge on 25.8.1983.

(3.) The suit was contested, wherein preliminary objection was taken, that the suit property was not valued correctly for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. The plaintiff/respondent was said to be adopted son of Smt. Gurnam Kaur and residing at village Ramditawala. Thus, it was said, that he has no locus standi to file the suit. The plaintiff was said to be not in possession of the suit land, therefore, the suit for declaration was said to be not competent. The plaintiff was said to be living separately for the last 35 years from the defendants, and no property or any other article was said to be jointly owned by the plaintiff and defendant No. 3. Specific stand taken in the written statement was, the defendant No. 3 had purchased land at village Mansa Kalan in the name of the plaintiff/respondent to separate him from the joint family. It was also the pleaded case of the defendant/appellants, that the plaintiff was addicted to drinking and had sold the land purchased for him by defendant No. 3. The suit land was said to be self-acquired property of defendant No. 3. Therefore, the decree was claimed to be perfectly valid one, and it was claimed that the mutation was rightly sanctioned.