RAM SARUP Vs. SHIVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second appeal by the defendants, of the original suit; challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed against him by both the Courts below in a suit for declaration; filed by the plaintiff for declaring him to be the owner in possession of House No. 179, Lohgarh Chowk, Pinjore, as well as for prohibitory injunction against the defendants; not to interfere in possession of the plaintiff.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the house in question was owned by Jaswinder Kaur, who was the mother of the plaintiff. The said house was purchased by her vide sale deed dated 10.07.1998. The mother of the plaintiff had re-constructed the said house after purchasing the same. The said re-construction was done by mother of the plaintiff with the funds provided by his maternal grandfather. Defendant No.l; who claims to be husband of the mother of the plaintiff, did not even contribute for the purchase of the house or for re-construction of the same. Jaswinder Kaur, i.e. mother of the plaintiff expired on 11.07.2004. She was survived by the plaintiff, who is her only son. At the time of death of his mother, the plaintiff was minor. Defendant No.l had abandoned the plaintiff and since then, the plaintiff was residing in the house of his maternal grandfather Khazan Singh. The plaintiff attained majority on 18.06.2007. Then the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.l has got recorded half share of the house in question in his name; in the record of the revenue department. However, the mutation in the name of defendant No.l is null and void. Still further, it was asserted that the defendants are the trespassers in the house in question. Therefore, they deserve to be prohibited from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. The defendant No.l claimed to be the husband of Jaswinder Kaur. However, the alleged marriage of Jaswinder Kaur with defendant No.l was void because she was having a living spouse at the relevant time. Hence, defendant No.l had no right, title or interest in any property left behind by Jaswinder Kaur, the mother of the plaintiff.

(3.) The suit filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendants. It was asserted by defendant No.2 that he had given Rs.40,000/- to defendant No.l in fiduciary relationship and he had purchased a plot in the year 1992; in the name of Jaswinder Kaur. The said plot was sold in the year 1998 and then the defendant No.l purchased 3 Biswas plot, on which the house in question is situated, in Village Lohgarh, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula vide the sale deed dated 10.07.1998 in the name of deceased Jaswinder Kaur. It was further asserted that the house in question was purchased by defendant No.l as Banami in the name of Jaswinder Kaur. The funds for re-construction were also provided by defendant No.l. The said Jaswinder Kaur was a divorcee, having obtained divorce from her earlier husband as per customs. It was further averred that though defendant No.l- Ram Sarup was also married with one Salochana earlier, however, his marriage was also dissolved by Panchayat. Thereafter, the defendant No.l married with Jaswinder Kaur. After the death of Jaswinder Kaur, maternal grandfather of the plaintiff had taken away plaintiff without the consent of defendant No.l. The house in question is owned and possessed by defendant No.l. Since plaintiff had misbehaved with defendant No.l, therefore, defendant No.l had disowned the plaintiff by publishing notice in the newspaper.