AVTAR SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts. Through this regular second appeal, the appellant calls into question the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff(appellant herein) for grant of decree of joint possession with the consequential relief of permanent injunction. In essence, the plaintiff prays for a decree of declaration that the decree dtd. 27/3/1995 passed in Civil Suit No.201 of 1994 is illegal and void. Some facts are required to be noticed. FACTS

(2.) As per the record available, Samund Singh transferred some part of the property including the suit property in favour of his four sons in the year 1937. In the revenue record, the mutation of the gift was entered and sanctioned on 24/8/1937. Joginder Singh son of Samund Singhhas married twice. From the first wife-Bachan Kaur, the plaintiff-Avtar Singh was born, whereas from the second wife-Surjit Kaur, 11 children were born. The plaintiff claims that since the property is Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property therefore, the decree suffered by Joginder Singh on 27/3/1995 is illegal, null and void.

(3.) Learned senior counsel representing the appellant contends that the transfer of immovable property worth more than Rs.100.00 could not be effected through an oral gift from Samund Singh to his 4 sons Chanan Singh, Dalip Singh, Joginder Singh and Bant Singh. He contends that in the absence of a registered document, the gift is not valid. Consequently, he contends that the property shall be deemed to devolve by natural succession and hence the nature of property as Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property stands proved. He further relies upon the pleadings in Civil Suit No.42 of 2006 filed by Defendant no.2, 5, 6 and 7 against Joginder Singh wherein it has been asserted that 55 kanals and 1 marla of land is Hindu Family's Ancestral Coparcenary Property. He further contends that the mutation does not confer any right or title and therefore, is not required to be challenged and thus, the courts have erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of being barred by limitation.