ARYA MITTAR Vs. ASHOK KUMAR GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below, wheretby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration to the effect that he and the appellants re owners in joint possession in equal shares of the land with consequential relief of permanent injunction, was decreed.

(2.) As per the averments made in the suit, appellants and plaintiff respondent with one Swaran Lata constituted a joint Hindu family. Appellant No. 2 being karta of the joint Hindu family, purchased the properties in dispute in the name of appellant No. 1, who was minor at the time of purchase of the suit land and had no source of income to purchase the same. It is the further case of the plaintiff-respondent that as the suit property was purchased from the funds of the joint Hindu family, so he being the co-parcener in the said joint Hindu family had every right, title and interest in the suit property as the suit property retained the character of joint Hindu family property. The suit property cannot be alienated without legal necessity or consideration without the prior permission of other coparceners including the plaintiff-respondent. The defendants were bent upon to alienate the suit property with a view to deprive the plaintiff respondent from a share in the same. Hence, the suit.

(3.) In the written statement, various preliminary objections were raised by the appellants. It was further pleaded that a family settlement took place between the parties on 1.10.1986 regarding the suit land. It was specifically mentioned that the above stated settlement was accepted by the persons concerned who signed the same as correct. Relationship between the parties was admitted, however, it was submitted that there was no joint family at present as the plaintiff-respondent was living separately and he had no concern with the appellants. It was further pleaded that partition took place between the parties on 31.12.1970 in which cash amount was divided amongst the family members and family settlement regarding the land was made on 1.10.1986 in which the ownership of land including the suit land was decided. Thus, the plaintiff was not co-parcener as alleged nor there was any joint Hindu family. It was denied that the suit property retained the character of joint Hindu family property. All the disputes regarding the land in dispute were settled between the parties by virtue of family settlement dated 1.10.1986. Plaintiff was owner of the land which was standing in his name and the defendant-appellants were the owners of the land which was standing in their name and therefore, the plaintiff respondent had no concern with the suit land and the appellants could deal with the suit land as they like being owners in possession of the same. Remaining averments made in the plaint were specifically denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Replication was filed by controverting the stand taken in the written statement and re-asserting the averments made in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: