JASWANT KAUR Vs. HARDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISHAR Singh, 'karbans Kaur, Jaswant Kaur, Rajbans Kaur; Tejinder Singh, minor son, Inderprit Kaur and Manpreet Kaur, Minor daughters of Sukhdiai Singh, husband of Rajbans Kaur; Narain Kaur and Satwant Kaur filed a suit against Hardial Singh and others for declaration to the effect that they are owners-in-possession of the land shown in sub-heads (A) and (B) as given in the plaint or in the alternative for possession of 6/7th share of the land measuring 41-IC 9-M comprised in Hadbast Khasras detailed as A B C D E (as per plaint) situated in the area of village Kokari Kalan, Ajitwal and Kokari Hairan, Tehsil Moga, on the ground that a distance arose between Ishar Singh, defendant for the reason that the latter was cultivating the land as son of Ishar Singh and started claiming hostile possession whereupon Ishar Singh, instituted a suit against him The case of the plaintiffs further is that Smt. Attar Kaur, wife of Ishar Singh died and Hardial Singh set up a Will claiming ownership of the land left by her on the basis of the Will which was the subject-matter of dispute between the parties. In fact, appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the mutation sanctioned in favour of Hardial Singh was accepted by the Collector and thereafter at the behest of near relations a compromise-cum-family settlement was executed and put in the court in the aforesaid suit which was acted upon. As per the said document, Ishar Singh was given 260 mounds of grains also. This order of the Collector was challenged by Hardial Singh, defendant, and the Commissioner accepted the appeal. Thereafter, Hardial Singh ignoring the compromise, with an intent to take back the possession, started interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiffs which led Ishar Singh to file a suit for injunction seeking a restrain order aganist him. It is further stated chat Hardial Singh resiled from the above arrangement (as per family settlement-cum-compromise ). Hence the present suit.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 put in appearance and asserted that Shmt. Attar Kaur made a valid will in his favour. He further alleged that the alleged compromise-cum family settlement pertained to the property extraneous to the pending suit and, thus, required compulsory registration. Since the compromise-cum-family settlement had not been got registered, the same could not be acted upon. The defendant further stated that he did not part with possession of any piece of land in favour of Ishar Singh, plaintiff. He also urged that the suit of Ishar Singh for declaration and injunction having already been dismissed the present suit was incompetent. Defendants No. 3 to 8 claimed to have become owners on the basis of sale deed duly executed by Hardial Singh. Besides, they urged that they were bona fide purchasers for value.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :