NAGINDER SINGH Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants-plaintiffs, have filed this appeal being aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 24.12.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, as well as judgment and decree dated 22.05.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, whereby suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, seeking declaration to the effect that they have become owners of the suit property and for mandatory injunction seeking issuance of directions to respondent no.2 (PUDA), for transferring the suit property in their favour, has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the appellants-plaintiffs claimed that the property in question i.e., HIG House No. 1604 , Phasae IX, Mohali, was allotted to Amar Singh Sawhney son of Sant Singh on 20.10.1987 under the partial self financing scheme.

(3.) Possession of the same was handed over on 30.12.1987. It is pleaded that the said house was sold by Amar Singh Sawhney to Gureshwar Singh by way of an agreement to sell along with an affidavit executed before the Executive Magistrate, Delhi on 24.11.1989, after receiving full and final payment thereof. Vacant possession of the house was statedly handed over to Gureshwar Singh. Subsequently, Gureshwar Singh, is claimed to have sold the house to Balraj Singh, after receiving full and final payment. Vacant possession of the house was handed over to Balraj Singh. Balraj Singh, is the father of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants no.3 to 5. It is claimed that Balraj Singh executed a registered will dated 09.05.2000 bequeathing the suit property to the plaintiffs, to the exclusion of his daughters i.e. defendants no.3 to 5. Plaintiffs approached the authorities for transfer of the property in their name, but the property was not transferred. Therefore, the present suit was filed. Defendants no.1 and 2, were proceeded ex parte and defendants no.3 to 5, admitted the plaintiffs claim. Replication was not filed. Issues were not framed as defendants no.3 to 5, admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs led evidence in support of their claim/stand. However, no evidence was obviously led by the defendants who were ex parte.