LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-484

ACHHAR SINGH Vs. SATNAM SINGH

Decided On September 13, 2010
ACHHAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
SATNAM SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Achhar Singh defendant is in second appeal having failed in both the courts below.

(2.) Respondent-plaintiff Satnam Singh filed suit against defendant -appellant Achhar Singh alleging that Didar Singh-grandfather of the defendant-appellant was owner of 43 kanals 18 marlas land. On his death, his two sons Swaran Singh and defendant's father Resham Singh inherited the same in equal shares. The plaintiff purchased 21 kanals 19 marlas land being the share of Swaran Singh in the aforesaid total land along with share in electric motor of tubewell bearing electricity connection No. APKF 835 installed in the suit land, vide sale deed dated 07.03.2006. Accordingly, plaintiff is owner in possession of the said land and is irrigating the same from the aforesaid tubewell. Plaintiff has also filed petition for partition of the joint land, which is pending before Assistant Collector First Grade. The defendant started interfering with user of the electricity motor connection by the plaintiff and started obstructing the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into the peaceful use of motor/electric connection by the plaintiff for irrigating his aforesaid land.

(3.) The defendant admitted that his grandfather was owner of the total land measuring 43 kanals 18 marlas and on his death, his two sons Swaran Singh and Resham Singh inherited the same. Defendant, however, denied other plaint allegations. It was denied that plaintiff has purchased 21 kanals 19 marlas land from Swaran Singh with right in electricity motor connection. Sale deed dated 07.03.2006 is false and sham transaction. Swaran Singh had no right to execute the sale deed. According to oral family settlement between Swaran Singh and Resham Singh in the presence of relatives and family members, agricultural land in suit fell to the share of defendant's father Resham Singh, whereas a house and a taxi service fell to the share of Swaran Singh. Various other pleas were also raised.