GURBINDER SINGH Vs. TEJA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 1718 of 1987 filed by defendant-appellant Gurbinder Singh and Regular Second Appeal No. 2396 of 1987 filed by plaintiff-appellant Teja Singh, against the judgment and decree dated 24.4.1987 passed by the Additional District Judge Patiala.

(2.) Plaintiff Teja Singh filed a suit against defendant Gurbinder Singh for a declaration that he is the owner of the land measuring 55 Bighas 1/2 Biswa, being one-half of the land measuring 110 Bighas 1 Biswas, fully described in the heading of the plaint and that the decree dated 1.1.1977, made in favour of the defendant and against Kartar Singh deceased in Suit No. 927 of 1976 regarding the suit land is collusive, null and void, illegal and, as such, inoperative and ineffective against the plaintiff qua the said land and, by way of consequential relief, the defendant has also been sought to be restrained from alienating the said land or any portion thereof.

(3.) The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the son of Kartar Singh s/o Harnam Singh; that Kartar Singh deceased was the owner in possession of the suit land which constituted a joint Hindu family coparcenary property in the hands of Kartar Singh deceased qua the plaintiff and, as such, the Plaintiff acquired an interest equal to that of Kartar Singh in that land by birth and he, therefore, was a co-owner in the same to the extent of half-share in it; that Kartar Singh in suit No. 927 of 1976 decided on 1.1.1977 suffered a consent decree in favour of the defendant, which is illegal and, as such, inoperative against the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that the suit land being a coparcenary property in which the Plaintiff had an interest to the extent of half-share, could not be transferred in favour of the defendant through the said suit which was not maintainable, and that the alleged family arrangement propounded by the defendant in that suit was false, fake and sham transaction without consideration and, as such, the said judgment is violative of the statutory law.