HARBIR Vs. RAJPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant - plaintiff filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction stating that the house in dispute was owned by father of the plaintiff and defendants No. I and 3 (Balwant Singh), who died in the year 1959 and on 6.6.1989, defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 in violation of injunction order earlier obtained by the plaintiff on 8.6.1989 and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to purchase the house under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, the Act). The suit was contested by the defendants.

(2.) THE trial Court decreed the suit and held that the plaintiff was entitled to acquire ownership of the share of defendant No. 1 on payment of Rs. 25,000/ - plus stamp and registration charges in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. The appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. It was held that the plaintiff had not led any documentary evidence to show that the plot was owned by their father Balwant Singh and was inherited by the plaintiff and the vendor from their father. On the basis of statements of Umed Singh, PW -2 and Harbir plaintiff PW -1, it could not be held that Balwant Singh, father of the plaintiff and vendor Kanwar Bhan, was the owner and the plot devolved upon the plaintiff and Kanwar Bhan as class one heirs.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents has supported the finding of the appellate Court relying on judgment reported in Ghewarwala Jain v. Hanuman Prasad and Anr., : AIR 1981 M.P. 250, which in term follows the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Valliyil Sreedevi Amma v. Subhadra Devi .