JASPAL KAUR Vs. RANBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide judgment and decree dtd. 10/7/2019, the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed by the learned trial Court and the appeal preferred against the said decree was dismissed by the learned first appellate Court on 10/12/2021. The defendants are now in Regular Second Appeal before this Court challenging the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position in the suit.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is that he had been residing with his grand-father Ajit Singh and separately from defendant No.1 i.e. his step mother and defendant No.2 i.e. his natural father, ever since he was about 5-6 years old. His grand-father Ajit Singh was owner in possession of land measuring 2 bighas 4 biswas 4 biswasi duly detailed and described in the head-note of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as, 'the suit property'). Ajit Singh executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff, qua which mutation too was entered and sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff became owner in possession of the suit property. The defendants with a view to grab the property of the plaintiff, conspired with each other and on the pretext of sending him to New Zealand called the plaintiff to their house. They convinced the plaintiff to give the suit property to them so that in lieu of it they would arrange money for sending him abroad. The plaintiff in good faith and being taken in by the defendants, executed sale deed dtd. 28/11/2013 in respect of the suit property in favour of his step-mother i.e. defendant No.1 without any sale consideration. It was followed by Mutation of the suit property being sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had thus played a fraud upon him as thereafter he was not sent abroad and rather was threatened by the defendants that they would dispose off the suit property. Left with no other choice, the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration as well as permanent injunction against the defendants for declaring the sale deed dtd. 28/11/2013 and mutation No.794 dtd. 9/12/2013 to be illegal, null and void, with a further prayer of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendants did not dispute the inter-se relationship between the parties however, they denied the allegations that they were trying to usurp the suit property. On the contrary, they alleged that the plaintiff had fallen into bad company and was under debt hence he approached the defendants to transfer the suit property in their name to avoid any adverse effect upon it. It was also submitted that in order to avoid stamp duty, the plaintiff had executed a transfer deed in favour of defendant No.1 on the basis of the documents pertaining to the suit property. It was further claimed that a payment of '5.00 lacs as sale consideration was also paid to the plaintiff and that the mutation thus sanctioned in the name of the defendant was legal and valid.