JASWANT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal, at the instance of plaintiff, is directed against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned first appellate court, whereby first appeal of the defendants was allowed, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration. Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned first appellate Court, are that the plaintiff filed a suit alongwith his brothers Randhir Singh and Shiv Karan but the names of the other two persons were deleted as they had not come forward to sign plaint and pursue the matter. In any case, one of them was competent to file the suit. It was alleged that the plaintiff and his brothers purchased the suit property from its previous owners Balbir Singh and his sister Jeeto and mutation was duly entered in their names. They remained in possession of the suit property as owners without any obstacle and objection from any quarter. Their names were also entered in the revenue record.

(2.) HOWEVER , when the plaintiffs wanted to mortgage the suit property for raising loan from the bank, they were surprised to know on obtaining copy of jamabandi that there was an entry in the remarks column regarding some report No. 501 dated 26.2.1997 and two more reports No. 228 of 6.9.2002 and No. 1 dated 1.9.2001. The first report was regarding some stay order issued by defendant No. 2. The plaintiff made inquiries and it was found that the allotment in favour of the original owner stood cancelled and defendant No. 2 was preparing to take steps for sale of the property through auction. The allotment was cancelled by the defendants without the knowledge of the plaintiff and co -owners which they could not have done as the purchasers were the affected parties. Since the defendants failed to accede to the request of the plaintiffs not to implement that order, the present suit was filed. The plaintiff wanted that he and his brothers should be declared to be the owners in possession of the suit property.

(3.) IT was denied that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property after verifying the title of his vendor. It was also denied that it was necessary for the defendants to have heard the plaintiff before cancelling the allotment.