SURJIT ALIAS JITA Vs. LAKHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants have come up in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial Judge, whereby the suit of plaintiff/respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) for possession of the disputed property was decreed.

(2.) The plaintiffs are the sons and daughters of Bakhtu Ram and Kauri Bai is his widow. On partition of the country, Bakhtu Ram migrated to India and died on 25.11.1957 at Rajpura town. The settlement Officer, Patiala on his dated 20.6.1960 held that the plaintiffs and Kauri Bai are the legal heirs of Bakhtu Ram. Kauri Bai representing herself to be the sole heir Bakhtu Ram got allotted three standard acres 6-3/4 units of land of her own name form Managing Officers, Sangrur on 14.12.1966. Gobind Ram acting as attorney of Kauri Bai sold 28 Kanals 16 Marlas of land to defendant Nos. 1 to 3/appellant Nos. 1 to 3 vide registered side deed dated 15.5.1967. Thereafter Ditu Ram acting as the attorney to Kauri Bai sold 58 Kanals 16 Marlas of land to defendant Nos. 4 to 6/appellant Nos. 4 to 6 vide sale deed dated 3.1.1967. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the order dt. 30.7.1969 vide which Sannad dated 26.7.69 was issued in respect of the disputed land in the name of Kauri Bai. The appeal was accepted on 21.11.1969. The order of the Managing Officer, Sangrur dated 14.12.1966 was reversed and it was held that the plaintiffs and Kauri Bai were the joint owners of the land allotted to Bakhtu Ram and Sannad dated 2.3.1970 was issued by the Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer Sangrur vide order dated 2.3.1970. The plaintiffs and Kauri Bai are the joint owners of the suit land. The plaintiffs are the owners to the extent of 3/4th share while Kauri Bai is the owner of 1/4th share. She was not competent to alienate the share of the plaintiffs. The sale with respect to their share was illegal. The defendants denied the allegations inter alia, pleading that they had purchased the land from the owner recorded as such in the records of right. The order setting aside the Sannad whereby the land was allotted in the name of Kauri Bai was passed without hearing them and thus, was not binding upon them. It was also pleaded that they are the bona fide purchasers for value and consideration and are entitled to the protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short the Act).

(3.) From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-