MAM CHAND Vs. SMT. BHAGO DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Mam Chand had filed a suit for declaration that he was the joint owner in possession of the suit land.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in brief was that Sahi Ram- defendant No.1 (since deceased) and Het Ram-defendant No.6 were real brothers. Plaintiff owned 58 Kanals 5 Marlas of land, whereas Sahi Ram, deceased owned 50 Kanals 4 Marlas and Het Ram owned 38 Kanals 3 Marlas of land in both the Khewats. In addition to this, the plaintiff also owned 3 Kanals 16 Marlas of land in joint khewat No. 531 and had further purchased 3 Kanals 7 Marlas of land from Kamla Devi on 11.5.1994 vide registered sale deed. Thus, in all, the plaintiff had become joint owner and in possession to the extent of 65 Kanals 8 Marlas of land. Sahi Ram, deceased had transferred his share in favour of his wife and two sons vide civil court decree dated 25.9.1993 and had retained only 7 Kanals of land with him, out of his total land measuring 50 Kanals 4 Marlas. On 8.7.1993, Karnail Singh and his wife moved an application for partition of their share out of the joint khewats. The said application was allowed vide order dated 31.5.1996. The suit land, owned and possessed by the parties, was however kept joint. During preparation of the partition proceedings, the shares held by the parties in the suit land, were not correctly recorded in Naksha 'BE'. The plaintiff had been given less land to the extent of 6 Kanals 2 Marlas, whereas defendant No.1 to 5 had been given 6 Kanals 2 Marlas of land in excess of their actual shares. Hence, the mutation qua partition bearing No. 3809 had not been correctly sanctioned, qua the shares of the parties. On coming to know about the mistake, plaintiff along with defendant No. 6 moved an application before Assistant Collector II Grade, Sirsa for correction of the revenue record. The said application was declined vide order dated 22.3.2000 on the technical grounds that the mutation had been implemented in the jamabandi for the year 1995-96. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 to 5, in their written statement, have averred that the plaintiff had concealed the material facts. Vide order dated 31.5.1996, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade had ordered the preparation of the Naksha-BE in the partition proceedings. After completion of all formalities including Naksha-zeem, mutation No. 3809 was sanctioned. The partition proceedings stood finalised vide order dated 31.5.1996.