AMAR NATH Vs. TEJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant, assailing the judgment and decree dated 2.11.1983 passed by the learned trial Court and judgment and decree dated 31.3.1987 passed by the learned first Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, dismissing the suit.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that the disputed land measuring 4 kanals 16 marlas 123 sq. ft. situated at Tam Taran is the joint property in which the plaintiff and also defendants No. S and 6 owned l/3rd share while the defendants No. 2 to 4 and 7 owned the remaining 2/3rd share in the same. The plaintiff is, however, in exclusive possession of the entire disputed land as co-sharer; Dr. Tejinder Singh defendant No. 1 in connivance with Satpal, defendant No. 5, threatens to enter possession of a portion of the disputed land on the front side and intends construction on the same but he has no right to do so; it is also alleged that land in dispute is chahi and if defendants No. 1 and S succeeded in raising construction on any portion of the disputed land that will change the nature and character of the disputed land; none of the co-sharers has the right to raise construction or dispose of any specific portion of the disputed land to the exclusion of others.

(3.) Defendants contested the suit. It was alleged by defendant No. 1 that he has no concern with the disputed land nor does he intend raising any construction on die same. It was further alleged by defendant No. 5 that the land measuring 30 kanals 15 marlas, including the disputed land, was earlier the joint property of the plaintiff and various other co-sharers; later on, the land measuring 18 kanals i.e. upto the depth of 240 feet was divided between the plaintiff and various other co-sharers; thereupon all the co-sharers raised boundary walls on the land falling to their share. The plaintiff and his two brothers namely Sat Pal and Joginder Pal, defendants No. 5 and 6, got six kanals of land in that family partition; they also subsequently partitioned the same; the plaintiff, then raised construction on his share in the disputed land and was now estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit; it was further pleaded that in the aforesaid family partition he got about 2 kanals of land and had started construction in that land; the plaintiff has no concern with the same nor could he obstruct him in raising construction on the land in his possession; it was also pleaded that various co-sharers had also raised construction on the property which fell to their shares in the family partition and that the suit of the plaintiff was not competent.