JASBIR KAUR Vs. HARPREET KAUR KHATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal by defendant no.1 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana whereby suit for possession and permanent injunction filed by respondent no.1 -plaintiff has been partly decreed and against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby appeal preferred by appellant -defendant no.1 has been dismissed.

(2.) FOR convenience sake, hereinafter reference to parties is being made as per their status in the suit.

(3.) THE detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that defendant no.1 was the sister -in -law of plaintiff and both the plaintiff and defendant no.1 purchased the property, fully described in the head -note of plaint, vide sale deed dated 22.09.1976 in equal shares and they were the joint owners of the said property. After the purchase of the property, construction was raised from the joint funds and thereafter the plaintiff started residing at Calcutta and she was not getting any benefit of her share in the property. It was further pleaded that defendant no.1 inducted defendant no.2 as tenant in the suit property and started realizing rent from defendant no.2 but did not pay half share of the rent to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that defendant no.2 was paying rent @ Rs.10,000/ - per month, but defendant no.1 flatly refused to give half share of the rent to the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 also allegedly refused to partition the property and threatened to alienate the property against the interest of the plaintiff. Hence, suit was filed. Upon notice, defendant no.1 resisted the suit and filed written statement through her attorney i.e. Prabhjot Singh. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit property which was exclusive property of defendant no.1 because entire sale consideration was paid by defendant no.1 and her husband and name of the plaintiff was mentioned in the sale deed only due to close relationship. No consideration was paid by the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff never objected to the alteration made by defendant no.1 but due to mala fide intention, she started claiming herself to be the joint owner of the said property. The husband of plaintiff and husband of defendant no.1 were having a transport business at Calcutta and some taxies were sold by the plaintiff and her husband by forging the signatures of husband of defendant no.1 and she also misappropriated 20 tollas of gold and one kilogram of silver and also withdrew money from the bank after forging the signature of defendant no.1. It was further pleaded that defendant no.1 was in exclusive possession of the suit property and she had inducted tenants at regular intervals and had realized rent from them. The plaintiff wanted to take undue advantage of incorporation of her name in the sale deed. Other averments in plaint were denied. Defendant no.2 did not appear and proceeded against ex parte. Replication was filed controverting the averments of written statement and reiterating the same as of plaint. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues: