MUKAND SINGH Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the disposal of the two suits and in turn to the disposal of these two appeals Nos. 580 of 1977 and 1204 of 1981 may, in the first instance, be noticed.

(2.) One Bir singh father of Mehar Singh plaintiff, in Civil Suit No. 337 of 1973 out of which the present Regular Second Appeal No. 580 of 1977 has arisen soldthe disputed land measuring 3 Bighas 8 Biswas (Khasra Nos. 754 and 74,55) to Kapur Singh for a sum of Rs. 500/- vide sale deed dated 13.12.1999 B.K. A usual declaratory suit was filed by Kaku Singh and Chanan Singh collaterals of Bir Singh challenging the afore-mentioned sale deed on the ground that the sale made by Bir Singh in favour of Kapur Singh was without legal necessity and hence void qua the rights of the reversioners. The suit was decreed in favour of the reversioners. The sale was converted into mortgage and it was held that the nearest collaterals of Bir Singh couldget possession of the land on the death of Bir Singh on payment of a sum of Rs. 300/- which amount was apparently proved to have passed on to the vendor. Bir Singh vendee died on 7.3.1971. His son Mehar Singh soldthe disputed land to Mukand Singh who is plaintiff No. 1 in Suit No. 337 of 1973 by virtue of sale deed dated 3.7.1973, that is, after the death of Bir Singh. The two plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by joining Kapur Singh as defendant No. 3, he being the vendee from Bir Singh and the other two defendants were also joined as the land in dispute was transferred to them by the aforesaid Kapur Singh. In defence the defendants averred that the mother of Mehar Singh plaintiff was alive and she having not been joined in the suit, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further averred that the land in dispute was not allotted to Kapur Singh in lieu of the previous khasra numbers and that the suit was barred by time. On the basis of the rival contentions between the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) Finding on Issue No 2 was confirmed by the lower appellate Court and in consequence thereof the appeal was dismissed. Against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court Mukand Singh alone had filed appeal No. 580 of 1977. At this stage, the factual position which emerges out of R.S.A. No. 11204 of 1981 may briefly be considered as detailed narration of facts has already been given above.