BHAGAT RAM Vs. KARAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by defendants No..1 to 3 against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court by which suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed.

(2.) THE case set up by the plaintiffs is that Babu Ram son of Dheru Ram, was the owner of the suit property who died leaving behind four sons, namely, Karam Chand, Amar Chand, Munshi Ram and Jit Ram, five daughters, namely Rajo, Karmi, Channo, Sibo and Bachni and his widow Jas Kaur. Jas Kaur wanted to alienate the suit property along -with Jit Ram which would have resulted into dispossession of other sons, namely, Amar Chand and Munshi Ram, therefore, they filed suit which was decreed by the then learned Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur on 19.9.1989. However, Jas Kaur sold the suit property to Jit Ram on 26.6.1990 and Jit Ram further sold it to defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely Bhagat Ram and Nirmal Dass vide sale deed dated 0.8.8.1990. In the earlier suit, Jas Kaur had alleged that she has become owner of the suit property by way of a Will executed in her favour by deceased Babu Ram in the year 1975. However, the said Will was ignored by the Court and the suit filed by Munshi Ram and others against Jit Ram for permanent injunction was decreed. A separate suit filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of sale deed dated 08.8.1990 was dismissed by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Hoshiarpur on 03.12,1993 holding the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 to be in possession of the property in dispute. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Amar Chand had filed a suit challenging the two sale deeds which was decreed by the Court of the then Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 26.8.1998 and the appeal preferred against that judgment by defendant Nos.1 to 3 was allowed by the then learned Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur, on technical grounds that the suit was bad for non -joinder of necessary parties and was not maintainable. Consequently, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs to seek partition of the property.

(3.) ON the other hand, defendants No. 1 and 2 contested the suit alleging that they are bonafide purchasers for consideration of the suit property and are in possession since the date of purchase and the suit decided by the Court of Sh.H.P.Nanda, Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur, was with regard to different property. Defendant No.3 also took the same plea in his written statement. Name of defendant No.4 was deleted vide order dated 21.3.2006.