PARBATI Vs. NIRANJAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 11days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly. Smt. Parbati plaintiff having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal.

(2.) Plaintiff is daughter of Manbhar. Proforma respondents no. 2 and 3 are daughters of Smt. Mana daughter of Manbhar. It is alleged by the plaintiff-appellant that Manbhar was in possession of the suit land measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas comprised of khasra no. 182 as gair marusi tenant and had constructed tin shed therein. He had no male issue. After his death, plaintiff and proforma respondents no. 2 and 3 inherited suit property which had also been gifted to them by Manbhar vide gift deed dated 23.8.1965. Defendant no. 1 has no concern with the suit property but defendant no. 1 wanted to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 1 from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and from taking forcible possession thereof and from raising any construction therein. It was also prayed that if defendant no. 1 succeeds in taking forcible possession of the suit property during the pendency of the suit, then decree for possession be also passed. Defendant no. 1 contested the suit and denied plaint allegations. It was pleaded that Manbhar had adopted Parbhu Dayal as his son. After the death of Parbhu Dayal, his son Bhola Ram become owner of the suit property. Defendant no. 1 purchased 100 square yards out of the suit property from Bhola Ram vide agreement dated 20.1.1998 for ` 17,000/- and paid ` 16,500/- to Bhola Ram. Sale deed was to be executed within one year. Time for sale deed was further extended on 15.1.1999. Defendant no. 1 has constructed his house in the aforesaid land by spending huge amount and is owner in possession thereof. Plaintiff and proforma respondents are neither owners nor in possession of the suit property. Various other pleas were also raised.

(3.) Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2004 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff stands dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.8.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.