HAZARI LAL Vs. KRISHNA DEVI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Hazari Lal, having lost in both the courts below, is in second appeal.

(2.) Suit plot No. 124, Sector 15, Panchkula was allotted to plaintiff's father Banta Prasad by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) vide letter dated 03.10.1978. Banta Prasad died on 29.05.1982 leaving behind his mother Gomti Devi, wife Krishna Devi - defendant Nos. 1 and five sons i.e. plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 as his legal heirs. Gomti Devi also died in July 1995. After death of Banta Prasad, at the instance of defendants Nos. 1 to 5, plaintiff affirmed an affidavit that he had no objection if the amount lying with PGI (employer of Banta Prasad) was allowed to be withdrawn by defendant No. 1 only. The said affidavit was affirmed on the assurance that the said amount after withdrawal would be distributed equally among all the legal heirs, but the amount was not so distributed. On the death of Banta Prasad, all his aforesaid legal heirs including the plaintiff, became owners of the suit plot and other property of Banta Prasad. However, defendant No. 1 has sold the suit plot to defendant No. 6. The said transfer/sale is illegal as defendant No. 1 alone was not owner of the suit plot. The plaintiff sought declaration that he is owner of the suit plot to the extent of his share and that sale of the suit plot by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 6 by executing sale deed and thereafter re-allotment/transfer of the said plot by HUDA - defendant No. 7 to defendant No. 6 are null and void. The plaintiff also sought separate possession of his share by partition. Injunction was also claimed.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 pleaded that Banta Prasad had executed Will in her favour and consequently, she alone became owner of the suit plot. Instalments of balance price of the suit plot and other dues were paid by her alone. All other legal heirs of Banta Prasad had also been treating defendant No. 1 to be exclusive owner of the suit plot. Her name was also recorded as such by HUDA. Suit was also alleged to be time barred. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 also separately pleaded the same version. Defendant No. 6 also separately took the same stand and further pleaded that he has purchased the suit plot for consideration after proper verification.