BALWANT KAUR Vs. AJMER SINGH ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant has come up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial Judge dismissing her suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-respondents from alienating specific portion or more than their share in the suit property. '

(2.) THE facts:the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-respondents (hereinafter the defendants) from alienating specific portion or more than their share in the suit land; that she alleged that she was a co-sharer alongwith the defendants in land measuring 124 Bighas 1 Biswa situated in Patti Jhuti, Bhatinda; that originally she had 1/6th share whereas l/6th share belonged to her deceased brother Nihal Singh; that Nihal Singh had sold his share to Gurcharan Singh, defendant No. 4 ; that defendants No. 2 and 3 and predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 1 challenged the sale through a usual declaratory suit; that the said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 13. 5. 2002 BK and the sale was converted into a mortgage redeemable on payment of Rs. 275/- to defendant No, 4, after the death of the vendor ; that after the death of the vendor, defendants No. 1 to 3 got the land redeemed, from defendant No. 4 and entered into possession thereof: that the plaintiff filed an application for partition of the joint land before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Bhatinda; that defendants No. 1 to 3, in order to create hurdles, threatened to sell specific portion of the suit land in excess of their share thus necessitating the filing of the instant suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining them from selling specific portion or more than their share in the suit land.

(3.) THE suit was contested by defendants No. 2 and 3. Defendant No, 4 was proceeded against ex-parte. The contesting defendants denied the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that she had sold more than half share in the suit land and thus she had no locus standi to main the suit.