SHEETAL PARSHAD & OTHERS Vs. SURAJBHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful legal representatives of deceased-plaintiff Jai Kanwar who lost the suit for declaration and permanent injunction have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the deceased-plaintiff Jai Kanwar that the suit property was originally owned by Radha Krishan and others. The deceased plaintiff and the defendant who were real brothers were cultivating the same for a long time. They became owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The original owners of the land filed an application for recovery of batai invoking the provision under Section 14(A) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. The deceased-plaintiff and the defendant resisted the claim on the ground that they have become owner of the property on the basis of adverse possession. A compromise was struck between the parties. As per the said compromise dated 24.4.1970, sale deed was to be executed by the original owners in favour of the deceased plaintiff and the defendant. But the defendant played fraud and got the sale deed executed on 6.6.1978 in his name and got registered the same on 15.7.1978. The deceased-plaintiff also contributed sale consideration, and expenses towards execution of the sale deed. The mutation of the entry was wrongly made in the name of the defendant alone. Hence the suit for aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit contending that the deceased plaintiff and the defendant never become the owner of the property by way of adverse possession. The deceased-plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. The defendant purchased the suit property by way of sale deed dated 6.6.1978 which was registered on 15.7.1978. The pleadings before the Assistant Commissioner (II) were filed only to resist the application. As per the compromise which was effected on 24.4.1970, the defendant repeatedly requested the deceased-plaintiff to contribute half of the sale consideration and expenses for execution and registration of the sale deed, but the plaintiff kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the deceased-plaintiff refused to pay half of the sale consideration. Therefore, the defendant got executed the sale deed and registered the same. Therefore, the defendant has sought for dismissal of the suit.