TARSEM KAUR Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Tarsem Kaur defendant/appellant has directed the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.9.2009 passed by Shri Ravinder Singh, learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the appeal preferred by the present appellant against the judgment and decree dated 7.9.2005 passed by Civil Judge ( Senior Division ), Gurdaspur decreeing the suit of the plaintiff with costs, was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from illegally and forcibly dispossessing him from the land measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas in khasra No.6R/1(8-0) as detailed in the heading of the plaint. The land was originally owned by Kartar Singh and after his death the same was inherited by Eeso and his daughter Tarsem Kaur. Kartar Singh during his life time mortgaged the property in favour of Mohan Singh, Sohan Singh, Makhan Singh and Dalip Singh sold their mortgagee rights to Sowaran Singh. Since then Sowaran Singh is in cultivating possession continuously. Kartar Singh mortgaged the suit property during his life time to the above said Mohan Singh, Sohan Singh, Makhan Singh and Dalip Singh. Thereafter, said Mohan Singh etc. purchased the suit land from Kartar Singh husband of Eeso and father of Tarsem Kaur vide sale deed dated 26.2.1959. Now the plaintiff along with his brothers Mohan Singh, Bakhshish Singh, Lakha Singh and Gurdial Singh purchased the land from said Mohan Singh etc. vide two sale deeds and now they are in possession of the same as owners. Sowaran Singh died on 3.7.2003 and defendant No.1 and her husband Bukan Singh are threatening to which they have no right. Hence the suit.

(3.) On notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement and took up preliminary objections that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. Moreover, defendant No.1 is a co-sharer in the joint possession in the suit land along with other land of joint khata. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction.