SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. BHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS Sukhwinder Singh and Baljit Singh having failed in both the courts below are in second appeal. Respondent plaintiff Bhajan Singh filed suit against defendants for permanent injunction alleging that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 33 kanals 4 marlas since long. The defendants tried to interfere in plaintiff's possession over the suit land. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land except in due course of law.

(2.) DEFENDANTS, inter alia, pleaded that they are in possession of land of khasra nos. 10//25/1/1(0-17) and 25/1/2(0-17) out of the suit land for the last 30 years whereas the defendants did not deny possession of the plaintiff over the remaining suit land. The defendants alleged that they had moved application for correction of khasra girdawari of the aforesaid 1 kanal 14 marlas land (herein referred to as the disputed land) which was still pending before the Assistant Collector. It was also pleaded that the suit land and other land was joint property of the parties but the same had been partitioned. Previously defendants' father Tara Singh was in possession of the disputed land and after his death in the year 1997, defendants are in possession thereof. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi vide judgment and decree dated 21.1.2008 decreed the plaintiff's suit restraining the defendants from interfering in plaintiff's possession over the suit land except in due course of law. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 7.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. Appellants have also moved CM No. 3628.C of 2011 for additional evidence to produce statement made by plaintiff " respondent in some other suit. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.

(3.) I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. From the record, it appears that 59 kanals 11 marlas land was joint land of the plaintiff and his two brothers Kewal Singh and Tara Singh. Defendants are sons of Tara Singh. Plaintiff had half share in the said joint land whereas Kewal Singh and Tara Singh jointly had the remaining half share. The plaintiff also purchased some land from the share of Kewal Singh and Tara Singh through sale deeds. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the plaintiff purchased 6 kanals land from Tara Singh and 3 kanals 19 marlas land from Kewal Singh. Consequently, the share of plaintiff in the total joint land measuring 59 kanals 11 marlas comes to a little less than 40 kanals. The plaintiff has claimed his possession over 33 kanals 4 marlas land in suit which is less than his share. Even defendants did not plead that the plaintiff is in possession of land in excess of his share in the joint land.