LAWS(P&H)-2010-8-464

KARAMJIT SINGH Vs. ISHAR KAUR AND ORS

Decided On August 04, 2010
KARAMJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
ISHAR KAUR AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Karamjit Singh plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.

(2.) Appellant filed suit against respondents. Respondents No. 2 and 3 and plaintiff-appellant are sons of defendant-respondent No. 1 Ishar Kaur. The plaintiff's case is that suit house was purchased in the name of defendant No. 1 with joint Hindu family funds including savings of plaintiff's grandfather Harbans Singh. Improvement in construction was made by plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3. In family settlement in the year 1993, the suit property was partitioned in three parts amongst the three brothers i.e. plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3. The plaintiff also got installed electricity connection in his name in his portion of the suit property. Defendant No. 1 agreed to transfer the suit property by sale deed or by consent decree in favour of plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3, but taking advantage of the sale deed in her favour, defendant No. 1 started threatening to alienate the suit property and to dispossess plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3. Defendant No. 1 filed suit for permanent injunction against plaintiff and defendant No. 3 and later on, a suit for possession against the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3 are owners in possession of the suit house to the extent of 1/3rd share each and defendant No. 1 has no right, title or interest therein.

(3.) Defendant No. 3 was proceeded ex-parte in the trial court. Defendants No. 1 and 2 contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations and inter alia pleaded that defendant No. 1 alone purchased the suit house vide sale deed dated 02.12.1975 and constructed the said house and she alone is owner of the suit house. In the year 2000, plaintiff tried to take forcible possession of the suit house. Thereupon, defendant No. 1 filed suit for permanent injunction against plaintiff and defendant No. 3. The said suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2001 and first appeal against the said judgment and decree preferred by the plaintiff herein was dismissed by appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2002, but during pendency of the said appeal, plaintiff herein took forcible possession of portion of the suit house and thereupon defendant No. 1 filed suit for possession of the said portion. The instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff as counter blast. Various other pleas were also raised.