MALKIAT KAUR Vs. DALJIT SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No.2-Malkiat Kaur has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent-Daljit Singh for declaration has been decreed holding that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas in joint Khata comprised in Khewat No.338, Khatauni No.443 bearing Khasra No.26R/22/1(3-11) 22/2 (2-5), 29R/19/2(5-0) 22/2(4-12), situated in the area of village Dugri Rajputan, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur vide copy of Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000.

(2.) According to the plaintiff-respondent, defendant No.1- Shamsher Singh son of Sarwan was owner in possession of land measuring 5 kanals 7 marlas in Khata No.338/443 as per the Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 and out of the said Khata, he alienated 1 kanal 5 marlas in favour of the plaintiff-respondent for consideration of Rs.1,51,000/- and after receiving the said amount delivered the possession and executed the sale deed dated 30.1.2004 in his favour. It is the further case of the plaintiff-respondent that thereafter, he orally gave his land on lease to said defendant No.1-Shamsher and could not get mutation sanctioned on the basis of sale deed dated 30.1.2004 and taking benefit of wrong revenue entries, he sold the land measuring 4 kanals 7 marlas in favour of the appellant (defendant No.2) which was wrong as he had already executed a sale deed dated 30.1.2004 in favour of the plaintiff and another sale deed dated 30.8.2004 in favour of defendant No.3-Moti Lal. Thus, the revenue entries which are wrong are liable to be corrected. Despite repeated requests, defendant No.1 failed to admit the claim of the respondent. Hence, the necessity arose to file the instant suit.

(3.) Upon notice, defendant No.3-Moti Lal did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed separate written statements. In his written statement, defendant No.1-Shamsher raised various preliminary objections and denied the execution of the sale deed dated 30.1.2004 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent further stating that the said sale deed was the result of connivance between the plaintiffrespondent and defendant No.3. Defendant No.2 i.e appellant in her written statement stated that she was lawful owner in possession of 4 kanals 7 marlas of land vide registered sale deed dated 9.11.2004 and no sale deed was ever executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and he was not in possession of the property in dispute. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties: