RANJIT SINGH Vs. KIRPAL KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

(2.) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for joint possession and permanent injunction has been dismissed by the courts below.

(3.) By filing the instant suit, the appellant sought joint possession of 1/22nd share out of the suit land, as detailed in the plaint. According to the plaintiff, he and Bahadur Singh-defendant No.16 are the sons of Gulzar Kaur, daughter of defendant No.1-Hardev Singh (who died on 21.09.1999). Defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit land being Karta of the family, which was coparcenary property of the plaintiff and defendant No.16-Bahadur Singh along with other defendants. According to the plaintiff, Chanda Singh was common ancestor of the parties, who was previously owner of the suit land, which has devolved upon his sons, namely, Hardev Singh and Bhagwan Singh, after his death. It is further averred that Hardev Singh had 12 daughters out of which one daughter, namely, Sarabjit Kaur was unmarried, whereas three daughters, namely, Gulzar Kaur, Nachhattar Kaur and Balbir Kaur had died after their marriage. Defendants No.10 to 15 are the sons and daughters of above said deceased daughters of Hardev Singh whereas defendants No.2 to 9 are the daughters of defendant No.1. The appellant further submitted that the suit property being coparcenary property cannot be transferred in any manner by the Karta except sold for consideration and legal necessity. Defendant No.1 transferred the property through transfer deed dated 4.2.2008 in favour of defendants No.2 to 12 without any consideration, therefore, the same was illegal, null and void to the extent of share of the plaintiff in the suit property. The appellant further challenged the transfer on the ground that defendant No.1 was not competent to do so and the same was without legal necessity. Plaintiff and defendant No.16 were having right by birth, being grandsons of defendant No.1, in the suit land; therefore, necessity arose to file the instant suit.