BALWANT SINGH Vs. SMT. SHUNNO DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal by the Plaintiff is directed against judgments and decrees dated 13.12.1982 and 7.3.1984 passed respectively by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot (hereinafter described as 'the trial Court') and the District Judge, Gurdaspur (referred to hereinafter as 'the first appellate Court') whereby his suit and appeal have been dismissed.

(2.) A suit for declaration was filed by the Plaintiff alleging that the land in dispute was originally part of shamlat land and subsequent to its partition between the co-sharers, it fell to the share of Smt. Pranti Devi alias Amarti Devi widow of Shri Nathu Ram, who had sold land the same to him along with land measuring 92 kanals and 7 marlas by virtue of sale deed dated 14.7.1972 as the said document contained a stipulation that proportionate share in the shamlat land would also be part of the sold land. Smt. Pranti Devi died on 19.2.1973 and her inheritance was mutated in the names of Defendants-Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 by the revenue authorities vide mutation No. 689 dated 20.10.1978. The suit land was also mutated in their favour which had come to the share of Smt. Pranti Devi in the wake of the partition. The Plaintiff challenged the said mutation as well as the sale deed dated 26.3.1979 purportedly executed by Smt. Shunno Devi-Respondent No. 1 in respect of a part of the land in dispute in favour of Defendant-Respondent No. 7 on the ground that the same were not binding upon him.

(3.) Two separate written statements were filed - one by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 7 and the other by Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. They contested the averments made by the Plaintiff. It was pleaded that although the suit land was, at one point of time, shamlat land, but the same had come to the share of Smt. Pranti Devi on the basis of partition between the co-sharers and when land measuring 92 kanals 7 marlas was sold by her, she never intended to sell it to him. It was further pleaded that the mutation of inheritance qua the properties of Smt. Pranti Devi was correctly sanctioned in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and that the sale of a part of the suit land in favour of Respondent No. 7 was legal.