PARDEEP KUMAR MEHTA Vs. HARBHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant no. 2 Pardeep Kumar Mehta has filed the instant second appeal after the defendants (appellant and proforma respondent no. 8 Harpinder Singh defendant no. 1) remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.

(2.) Suit was filed by Dr. Kirpal Singh (plaintiff no. 1 since deceased and represented by respondents no. 1 to 6 as his legal representatives) and his brother Dr. Gurdial Singh plaintiff no. 2/respondent no. 7 against the appellant and proforma respondent no. 8 challenging consent judgment and decree dated 20.7.1991 passed in civil suit No. 479/91 titled Harpinder Singh v. Kirpal Singh and others. The plaintiffs alleged that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs vide sale deed dated 10.5.1962 in the name of their father Tehal Singh. After purchase they completed the construction and also added another story in the house by spending huge amount. The plaintiffs and their other family members including their mother Laj Kaur started residing in the said house. Plaintiffs' father Tehal Singh died in the year 1982. Plaintiffs' sister Gurdeep Kaur was married with Harpinder Singh defendant no. 1 in the year 1971. However, defendant no. 1 was harassing and torturing Gurdeep Kaur for forcing her to bring more money from her parents and brothers. Defendant no. 1 also used to claim share in the disputed house and other properties. Some demands of defendant no. 1 used to be met by parents of the plaintiffs. Defendant no. 1 and his family members including plaintiffs' sister Gurdeep Kaur were allowed to live in the suit house for some time so that in the meantime defendant no. 1 could make some alternative arrangement. After death of plaintiffs' father, plaintiffs intended to sell the disputed house and asked defendant no. 1 to vacate the same after six months. However, before filing of the suit, plaintiffs learnt that defendant no. 1 had sold the suit house to defendant no. 2 appellant vide sale deed dated 27.7.1999 allegedly on the basis of consent decree dated 20.7.1991. The plaintiffs alleged that the said decree was obtained by fraud and impersonation and is null and void and is not binding on them and consequently, the sale deed dated 27.7.1999 is also null and void and is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claimed relief of possession of the suit house.

(3.) The defendants controverted the plaint allegations and inter alia pleaded that they are owners in possession of the suit house. Plaintiffs' father Tehal Singh had himself purchased the suit house vide sale deed 10.5.1962. By family arrangement out of love and affection, Tehal Singh gave the suit house to defendant no. 1 and in pursuance of said family settlement-cum-arrangement gave its actual possession to him in the year 1981. Since then defendant no. 1 and his wife and other family members continued in actual possession of the suit house and plaintiffs never raised any objection to the same. Defendant no. 1 and his wife also served plaintiffs' mother Laj Kaur till her death in the year 1995 after she became disabled in an accident. In the year 1986, the plaintiffs tried to back out of the settlement and thereupon by way of compromise defendant no. 1 paid Rs 1,10,000/- as price of the suit house to the plaintiffs by way of hush up money. Decree dated 20.7.1991 and sale deed dated 27.7.1999 were claimed to be legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised.