MOHAN PAL SINGH Vs. KARAMPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this revision petition is as to "whether plaintiffs can be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal on an issue in which the onus of proof is on them".

(2.) In order to unfold the controversy between the parties, a few facts are necessary to be noticed. The present revision petition has been filed by the defendants. Plaintiffs Kishan Pal Singh and Karampal Singh sons of Kartar Singh filed the present suit for joint possession of 1/2 share of land measuring 151 Kanals 05 Marlas and 1/2 share of land measuring 26 Kanals 17 Marlas, situated in the area of Muktsar-III, Tehsil Muktsar. In the suit, it is, inter alia, alleged that the plaintiffs along with their brothers Harpal Singh, Gurlal Singh and Gurpal Singh were the owners of land measuring 245 Kanals 07 Marlas in the revenue estate of Goneana out of which an area of 206 Kanals 04 Marlas was surrendered by them in favour of the Central Government vide mutation No. 1282. In lieu whereof, they were allotted land measuring 182 Kanals 02 Marlas in the revenue estate of Garden Colony, Muktsar. It is alleged that the land should have been allotted in the name of all the owners, namely, Harpal Singh, Gurlal Singh, Gurpal Singh, Karampal Singh and Kishan Pal Singh, but it was allotted in the name of Harpal Singh. After the consolidation, land measuring 151 Kanals 05 Marlas and 26 Kanals 17 Marlas was allotted in the revenue estate of Muktsar to Harpal Singh. Harpal Singh has expired and he is succeeded by defendant Nos. 1 to 3, who are his widow, son and daughter. It was further alleged that Harpal Singh, Gurpal Singh and Gurlal Singh were the owners to the extent of 1/5 share of the suit land. The share of Gurpal Singh out of the suit land was satisfied in a family settlement and he and his sons were given 1/2 share of land out of 76 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in the area of Muktsar-III. Thus, the share of Gurpal Singh out of the suit land stood eliminated. Gurlal Singh filed a suit and got his 1/4 share out of the suit land and, thus, the suit land remained the ownership of the plaintiffs to the extent of 1/2 share. In order to make it more clear, it was mentioned that the share of Gurpal Singh was satisfied by the family settlement whereby he and his sons got 1/2 share of land measuring 76 Kanals 18 Marlas out of the common land of the parties and after eliminating the share of Gurpal Singh, the property came under the ownership of four brothers, namely, Kishan Pal Singh, Karampal Singh, Harpal Singh and Gurlal Singh. Since Gurlal Singh got his share by filing a Civil Suit, therefore, the plaintiffs and Harpal Singh had the remaining share in the suit land, but Harpal Singh retained three shares instead of one share and on that count the suit was filed to claim 1/2 share of the suit land.

(3.) The suit was contested by filing written statement in which it was, inter alia, alleged that the property in question was allotted by the Rehabilitation Department vide Sanad No. F-4/54/57 in August, 1956. Plot No. 57 was in the name of Harpal Singh. The said allotment became final and is not amenable to challenge in view the the bar provided under Section 27 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act, 1954. The plaintiffs were compensated for the land exchanged from village Goneana and two plots bearing No. D-33 and D-32 were got purchased in the name of Karampal Singh and Kishan Pal Singh in the Maharani Bagh Cooperative House Building Society, New Delhi for which the amount was paid by Col. Harpal Singh, father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, from his own personal funds and in lieu thereof Karampal Singh gave his affidavit dated 11.09.1971 and Kishan Pal Singh gave his affidavit dated 11.08.1972 to the effect that they have already partitioned their land in family settlement by mutual agreement. The plaintiffs filed replication in which they admitted the execution of aforesaid affidavits.