BALDEV SINGH Vs. MALKIAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for a moment. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :

(2.) THIS is a defendants appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.8.1987 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1987 passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib who decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents.

(3.) NOTICE of the suit was given to the defendants who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. According to the defendants the plaintiffs have no concern with the suit property nor they have any joint Hindu family with the defendants. The suit property is not joint coparcenary property of the parties, rather it is a self-acquired property of defendant No. 1. However, defendant No. 1 admitted the filing of the suit by defendant No. 5 and also passing of the decree and stated that the decree is valid one which is based on family settlement which took place in the family of defendant No. 1 and, as such, the decree confers valid title on defendant No. 5. Since the plaintiffs have no concern with the suit land, therefore, there was no necessity to have their consent before entering into any family settlement in favour of defendant No. 5.