AJIT SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant had filed the instant suit for possession, alleging that the suit land was owned and possessed by plaintiff as well as Dharam Singh, defendant no.5 in equal shares, as they constituted a joint Hindu family and the suit property was a coparcenary property. No partition had taken place between the parties. However, defendant no.5 sold the entire land without any necessity and consideration in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 vide registered sale deed executed on 13.6.1979 for a consideration of Rs. 36,000.00. Defendant no.2 had further alienated his share in the land to defendants no.3 and 4 without any legal necessity only to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

(2.) In the written statement, defendants No.1 and 2 submitted that no Hindu joint family was in existence, as alleged. It was further denied that the property was Hindu coparcenary property. However, ownership of Dharam Singh as well as sale him was admitted. It was further stated that sale was effected in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 by defendant no.5 for repayment of his loan and he also wanted to purchase the land of better quality. It was further contended that defendant no.5 being the head and Karta of the family did this in good faith. It was further stated that defendant no.5 being Jat, was not governed by Hindu law, but the customs as prevalent in Sonepat district. Additional plea to the effect that the suit was not maintainable during the life of defendant no.5 was also taken. Thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed.

(3.) Defendant nos.3 and 4 also raised similar pleas. However, defendant no.5 was proceeded ex-parte and no written statement was filed by him.