HARBANS SINGH Vs. SAMITTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall decide RSA No.1184 of 1985 and RSA No.3107 of 1986 since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 19.3.1985 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala.

(2.) Suit No.128/27.4.1979 titled as "Puran Singh Vs. Samittar Singh and another " was filed by the plaintiff-appellant seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the land measuring 185 kanals 7 marlas situated in the Revenue Estate of village Bhakhariana. It was stated that respondents No.1 to 7 had filed a Civil Suit No.283 dated 27.7.1976 in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Phagwara against him, in respect of the land aforementioned and had obtained a fraudulent decree from the Court on 13.10.1976 on the basis of an oral gift alleged to have been made in June 1994 in favour of the respondents. It was asserted that such decree was void and against the proprietary rights of the plaintiff-appellant and as such, not binding upon him. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant had never delivered possession of the suit land to the respondents and as such, they be restrained from interfering in his possession. The respondents resisted the suit on various grounds and stated that the plaintiff-appellant is estopped from filing the same on account of his act and conduct. The possession of the plaintiff-appellant was denied and it was pleaded in the written statement that by virtue of an oral gift made in their favour in June 1954, the possession of the suit land had been surrendered. It was averred that the respondents had filed a suit in which the plaintiff-appellant had admitted the fact of having made an oral gift of the suit land in their favour and the Court accordingly had passed a decree in their favour.

(3.) Suit No.147 of 15.5.1979 was filed by Harbans Singh against Puran Singh and others for the issuance of a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his possession towards the suit land measuring 59 kanals 18 marlas as mentioned in the head note of the plaint. The case of plaintiff-appellant Harbans Singh, as set up in the suit, was that Puran Singh was the owner of the suit land and the plaintiff-appellant is a tenant under the owner for the last four years. It was averred that the respondents are threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land on the basis of an alleged oral gift which is non-existing in favour of the respondents.