LAL SINGH Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAL Singh, Plaintiff, has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide which the Appeal was accepted, the judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court, were set aside and the suit, filed by Lal Singh, plaintiff, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) THE facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present Appeal, are that Lal Singh, plaintiff, filed as suit for declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 13.3.1995, passed in the Civil suit titled as Jaswant Singh etc. v. Gurpal Singh, in respect of the land in dispute, were illegal and void and for seeking joint possession and permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner whatsoever. It was alleged that Lal Singh plaintiff, Bhag Singh and Kirpal Singh were joint owners and co-sharers of the suit land and being brothers, they had constructed a joint family house and were living together in mess and cultivation and that the plaintiff was the incharge of the family. It was alleged that Kirpal Singh was the owner of the property, detailed in the head-note of the plaint, and that he died on 16.7.1996. It was alleged that the plaintiff was in jail for sometime and in his absence, defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of Bhag Singh aforesaid while defendant No. 4 is Bhag Singh himself), hatched a conspiracy to grab the land of Kirpal Singh, who was issueless. It was alleged that the judgment and decree dated 13.3.1995, passed by the Civil Court, were illegal and void and not binding upon the plaintiff, qua his rights in the suit land and were liable to be set aside. It was alleged that the plaintiff, being a brother of Kirpal Singh, was entitled to 1/3rd share out of the property of Kirpal Singh and that the remaining share belonged to defendant Nos. 4 and 5 namely Bhag Singh, aforesaid, and their sister, Surjit Kaur. The said suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 3, alleging therein that Kirpal Singh was residing with defendant Nos. 1 as a member of their family and that Kirpal Singh had voluntarily suffered the decree in question against him of his own accord, as he had already given the suit land to defendant Nos. 1 to 3. It was alleged that the said judgment and decree were perfectly legal and valid and were binding on the parties. It was alleged that Kirpal Singh had surrendered his rights in the suit land to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in a family settlement.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and have gone through the record carefully.