JARNAIL SINGH Vs. GURMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has approached this Court through the present regular second appeal. He has challenged the judgment and decree dated December 24, 1980 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated February 6, 1978 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ferozepur was allowed and consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession was decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of land measuring 27 kanals 12 marlas. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that Harnam Kaur wife of Bagga Singh was the original owner of the suit land. Bagga Singh had three sons, namely, Paramapal Singh, Gurmail Singh and Sukhminder Singh. Bagga Singh was earlier married to Mann Kaur. Mann Kaur gave birth to a son Mehar Singh. Defendant, Jarnail Singh, is son of Mehar Singh. Harnam Kaur executed a power of attorney on May 15, 1973 in favour of her grand-son, Parampal Singh. On the basis of the said power of attorney, Parampal Singh sold 90 kanals 12 marlas of land including the land in dispute. The land in dispute was sold by Parampal Singh in favour of his two sons Bhupinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh and his two brothers Gurmail Singh and Sukhminder Singh through a registered sale deed dated September 3, 1973 for a consideration of Rs. 24,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, the present plaintiffs claimed that they are the owners of the suit land. They also claimed that Harnam Kaur had executed a registered will on July 6, 1966 in favour of Gurmail Singh, Sukhminder Singh and Parampal Singh with regard to her property. The plaintiffs further claimed that taking advantage of their absence from the village, the defendant had taken illegal possession of the suit land in Rabi, 1973. He was asked to vacate the possession but did not do so. Accordingly, the suit for possession was filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. It was held that the sale deed Ex. P-1 dated September 3, 1973 relied upon by the plaintiffs was a sham transaction, since no consideration was paid by the vendees for transfer of the land. It was held that the defendant had remained in continuous possession of the suit land and, as such, had become owner of the same by way of adverse possession. The plaintiffs gave up their claim on the basis of the Will, Ex. P-2, because of the fact that they relied upon the sale deed Ex. P-1.