KHIDMAT SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal By The Defendant/appellant Is Directed Against The judgment and decree dated 11.8.1984, passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit for possession filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was ordered to be decreed.

(2.) Plaintiff filed suit on the pleadings, that Jaimal Singh had three sons, namely Sardar Kehar Singh, Sardar Sucha Singh and Sardar Puran Singh. Plaintiff Joginder Singh was son of Kehar Singh, whereas defendant/appellant though son of Kehar Singh was said to have been adopted by Sucha Singh. It was the case set up by the plaintiff that Sucha Singh, brother of Kehar Singh did not marry but he adopted Khidmat Singh appellant vide adoption deed dated 15.4.1963, during his life time. Sucha Singh died on 5.8.1978. Kehar Singh, father of the plaintiff Joginder Singh had one third share in the suit land as detailed in the head-note of the plaint. He executed a Will dated 16.10.1969 in favour of the plaintiff, in lieu of services rendered by him. Kehar Singh died on 24.1.1970 and the plaintiff, therefore, became exclusive owner of the suit property, both immovable and movable left by him.

(3.) It was further pleaded, that defendant No. 1 after few days of the death of Kehar Singh orally exchanged the suit land in lieu of 8 bighas of land in village Mohi, which was in the name of his wife. After the exchange, Khidmat Singh appellant cultivated the land of village Dhallian and plaintiff cultivated the land in village Mohi. In the month of March, 1977 the appellant/defendant No. 1, took possession of land of village Mohi from the plaintiff. When inquiries were made by the plaintiff/respondent, it came to his knowledge that appellant got mutation sanctioned in his favour of share of the suit land. He further mortgaged his share, with defendant Nos.2 & 3. When plaintiff/respondent demanded the possession of land of village Dhalian from the defendants, defendant No. 1 delivered possession of half share of land, which was in his name but refused to deliver the possession of remaining half share. Mutation in favour of the defendant/appellant was claimed to be illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff/respondent. Defendant/appellant had also illegally mortgaged 1/6th share in the suit land, who forcibly took possession of the suit land about two years prior to the filing of the suit. Plaintiff/respondent sought possession on the basis of the Will and in view of adoption of defendant No. 1.