SURAJ BANS SINGH Vs. PRITPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Suraj Bans Singh son of Amolak Singh, resident of WC-134, Opposite Civil Hospital, GT Road, Jalandhar (since dead) represented by his LRs had brought a suit against Pritpal Singh and others, seeking a declaration that plaintiff is joint owner and in joint possession to the extent of 5/9 share in the suit property bearing WC 134 situated at GT Road Opposite Civil Hospital, Jalandhar and sale deed dtd. 3/12/1999 registered on 10/12/1999 executed by defendant No.2 to 8 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of specific portion measuring 3 marlas in the house in question is illegal, null and void not binding upon rights of the plaintiff and by way of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from exercising any act of joint possession in respect of the portion of the joint property purchased by him on the basis of impugned sale deed dtd. 10/12/1999 and from claiming rent from the tenants, namely Raman Kumar and Arun Pathak in respect of shop marked X and Maini Marked Y till the partition in due course and further for declaration that possession of defendant No.1 over the shop Marked 1 is that of trespasser besides seeking possession by ejectment of defendant No.1 out of that shop.

(2.) As per the version of the plaintiff his father Amolak Singh was the original owner of the suit property, which was in the form of dwelling house; Amolak Singh died intestate in the year 1971; thereafter Sant Kaur, Manmohan Singh, Kuldip Singh, Harpreet Kaur, Narinder Singh had died leaving behind their respective legal heirs; Davinder Singh and Baljit Singh - sons and Smt.Narinder Kaur daughter of Amolak Singh had sold their 1/9th share each in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff vide sale deeds dtd. 11/6/1997, 27/8/2001, registered on 27/8/2001, 12/9/2001 and .1/4/2002, respectively, in that way the plaintiff became owner to the extent of 5/9 share in the suit property; the suit property is still joint; 1/9 share belongs to defendants No.9 to 12, LRs of Kuldeep Singh son of Amolak Singh, Harjit Kaur wife of Narinder Singh on her own behalf and as a attorney of Jaswinder Singh son of Rani alias Harpreet Kaur, Micky, Himantika, Rubina and Rajbans Kaur had sold their respective share measuring 3 marlas, which is the property in dispute comprising one shop, room on the backside, chubara passage, courtyard and staircase along with all rights appurtenant thereto for Rs.12,50,000.00to defendant No.1 Pritpal Singh. According to the plaintiff, since the whole house was joint of all the LRs of Amolak Singh, therefore defendants No.2 to 8 had no right to sell specific portion to defendant No.1, who was not member of the family of Amolak Singh; defendant No.1 had purchased the alleged specific portion knowing fully well of pre-existing right of the plaintiff over the portion being tenant in shop since days of Amolak Singh; defendant No.1 is not member of the family of Amolak Singh, therefore is not entitled to joint possession with family members of Amolak Singh of any part of the house; however, on account of mala fide intention of defendants No.1 to 8, a cloud has been cast on the legal rights of the plaintiff; defendant No.1 refused to accept the genuine request of plaintiff and to take the sale deed in his favour to be sale of a share and not of specific portion but to no effect, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit in question.

(3.) On notice, defendants No.1 and 2 appeared and filed a joint written statement, whereas defendants No.3, to 5 and 13 filed a separate filed a separate joint written statement.