GURDIAL SINGH Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No.1-appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 & 2 has been decreed and the findings affirmed in appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 (Raghbir Singh) & respondent No.2 (Kanwar Pal Singh) filed a suit for possession of land measuring 14 kanal 19 marlas situated in village Ghuralla, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur on the basis of registered sale deed dated 24.2.1995. Upon notice, the suit was contested by defendant No.1-appellant only as defendant No.2-respondent No.3 was proceeded ex parte by the learned trial Court vide order dated 11.1.1996. After hearing both the sides, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurdaspur vide its judgment and decree dated 7.12.2001 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 & 2. On an appeal having been filed by defendant No.1-appellant, the same has been dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur vide its judgment and decree dated 3.9.2009, hence the present second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the courts below have committed a grave error while decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 & 2 as the property in dispute is an ancestral property and as such defendant No.2-respondent No.3 had no right to execute the sale deed dated 24.2.1995 in favour of the plaintiffs the same being illegal and no benefit can be granted to the plaintiffsrespondents. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal.

(3.) Plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 & 2 i.e Raghbir Singh and his nephew Kanwar Pal Singh have based their claim on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 24.2.1995 executed by Harjiwan Singh defendant No.2/respondent No.3. It was the case of the defendant No.1-appellant that the said sale deed is illegal and not binding upon him as defendant No.2 had no right, title or interest in the suit land as the same was an ancestral property. It was further alleged that their father-Thakur Singh (since deceased) used to live and work in China and thus not residing in the village but when he came back from China, he settled in Amritsar and defendant No.1 was born there. Actually their father continued to remain as owner of property in dispute but the same was managed by defendant No.2/respondent No.3 and thus, erroneous entries were recorded in his favour and by taking undue advantage of these entries, the sale deed was executed by defendant No.2-respondent No.3 in favour of the plaintiffs.