PARKASH KAUR Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal against judgment and decree of the Courts below by which her suit for separate possession by way of partition and for permanent injunction, has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, Jaswant Kaur was the owner of property in dispute comprising Khata No. 428/555, Khasra No. 98/2/1, bearing House No. B-XX-1173/1 (New) 1025/2 (Old), situated in Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana. She had two daughters namely Parkash Kaur (plaintiff) and Surjit Kaur (respondent No. 1) Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No. 1. The case set up by the plaintiff for separate possession by way of partition of the property in dispute to the extent of 1/2 share by metes and bounds is on the ground that her mother Jaswant Kaur had died intestate and she being one of the heirs, out of the two heirs left behind by her mother, is entitled to 1/2 share and also prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction seeking to restrain of the defendants from alienating the suit property in any manner. In reply, the defendants had alleged that Jaswant Kaur had purchased the land in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 09.09.1970 and had sold the property in dispute to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 23.04.1993 vide Vasika No. 2223 registered on 26.04.1993 for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Jaswant Kaur admittedly died on 22.04.1995 and the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 31.05.1995. Due to variance in the pleadings of the parties, issues were struck by the learned Trial Court on 12.08.1997 and on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence, both the Courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant.

(3.) In this second appeal, plaintiff has pressed the only question of law to the effect that "whether a transaction entered at the behest of a person having fiduciary relationship can be said to be genuine and valid in the absence of proof of payment of amount of consideration." He has relied upon two decisions of this Court in the case of Karnail Singh and Ors. v. Dalip Kaur and Ors., 1995 HRR 436 and in the case of Chalti Devi and Ors. v. Rajinder Kumar and Anr., 2003 135 PunLR 463. The sum and substance of the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant is that there was no money transaction in the sale deed dated 23.04.1993 and as such, the said sale deed cannot be set up by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in their favour to deny the plaintiff/appellant 1/2 share in the property of her mother.