GURDIAL SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated 3 9 1988 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial. Court were modified and the plaintiff was held to be entitled to the possession of the land to the extent of l/3rd share only on payment of proportionate amount i. e. l/3rd of Rs. 2000/ -.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff on the allegation that the land measuring 132 Kanals as detailed in the heading of the plaint was allotted during the consolidation of holding in lieu of land mentioned in para 2 of the plaint which was owned and possesssed by Jaimal Singh father of the plaintiff. Jaimal Singh sold this land for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 5800/-by registered sale deed on 1. 2. 1952. One Anokh Singh claiming superior right of pre-emption filed suit for possession whose suit was decreed. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed executed by his father was without consideration and legal necessity. The suit was decreed on 29 7. 1965 holding that the sale would not effect the reversionary right of the plaintiff. However, the trial Court held that a sum of Rs. 2000/- was paid to Jaimal Singh by the vendee and accordingly it was directed that the plaintiff or any other reversioner will be entitled to possession of the suit land on payment of Rs. 2000/ -. This order was upheld in appeal vide order dated 21-3-1956, in the regular second appeal decided o"9-5-19ol the judgment and decree of the trial Court was maintained. Jaimal Singh died on 28-5-1984 and so his reversioner/reversloners became entitled to possession of land on payment of Rs. 2000/- as per judgment of the High Court dated 9-5-1961. Anokh Singh also died, so the present defendants succeeded to the estate of Anokh Singh. Since the defendants declined to accept the claim of the plaintiff, so the present suit was filed.

(3.) THE defendants put in appearance, filed written statement and controverted the various allegations of the plaintiff. Objection was raised with regard to the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the present suit, non joinder of necessary parties, the suit having not been valued properly For the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and it being time barred.