MAGHAR SINGH Vs. GURMEL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.7.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Barnala dismissing his suit for declaration to the effect that he alongwith defendant-respondent 1 are owners in possession of the suit land vide family settlement effected between the parties. Further prayer for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant-respondents 2 to 6 from alienating the suit property to any other person was also declined.

(2.) IN brief the case of the plaintiff-appellant is that his father Bachan Singh since deceased was owner in possession of the suit land. The aforementioned Bachan Singh was also father of defendant-respondents 1 to 5 and the husband of defendant-respondent 6. On the basis of family settlement, it is claimed by the plaintiff-appellant that the suit property was given to him and to defendant-respondent 1 as the same was ancestral in character. The memorandum of family settlement is alleged to have been scribed before the Panchayat but it was not given effect in the revenue record. It is further alleged that Bachan Singh deceased by taking advantage of this fact made an attempt to alienate the suit land during his life time and after his death defendant-respondents 2 to 6 had been trying to alienate the same. It is further claimed that the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent 1 are owners in respect of their shares and defendant-respondents 2 to 6 have no right to the suit property. In these circumstances, a declaration was sought along with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant-respondents 2 to 6 from alienating the suit property to any other person. The relationship of plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent 1 with Bachan Singh deceased was admitted. However, it was denied that Bachan Singh deceased had given the suit property in a family settlement to the plaintiff-appellant or defendant-respondent 1. Defendant-respondents 2 to 6 further alleged that the suit property was self acquired property of Bachan Singh deceased and he had executed a registered will on 3.10.1991 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent. Accordingly they are owners in possession of the suit property in equal shares.

(3.) ON appeal filed by the defendant-respondents, the learned Additional District Judge did not agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court that the property in dispute was coparcenary property and recorded the following findings :-