JANGIR SINGH Vs. NARANJAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was an appeal preferred by Jangir Singh son of Hazara Singh, appellant-defendant impugning the judgment and decree dated 21.12.1985 granted by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.08.1982 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Moga, by virtue of which the suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiffs-respondents Naranjan Singh and others was dismissed. Precisely, the case of the plaintiffs was that the land bearing Khasra No. 4 and "Tukra" portion No. 501, situated in the area of village Jhandiana Sharki red line, Tehsil Moga (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land") belonged to Shamlat Patti which was partitioned by Collector, Moga vide order dated 23.05.1982. As a result of the partition, the suit land was allotted to Ghania Ka Thola. Dayal Singh etc. were the sons of Ghania Singh. A pedigree table of Shri Ghania Singh was mentioned according to which they (plaintiffs No. 1 to 3, namely, Naranjan Singh, Chanan Singh and Inder Singh) were sons of Hamam Singh son of Dayal Singh son of Ghania Singh and plaintiff No. 4 Ujagar Singh was son of Maghi Singh son of Sajjan Singh grand son of Ghania Singh.

(2.) Jangir Singh-defendant appeared and contested the suit. He pleaded that Natha Singh son of Bila had sold a plot measuring 12 Marlas out of the suit land to his father Hazara Singh vide registered sale deed dated 6th January, 1947. Thereafter, Nand Singh, Mewa Singh and Kehar Singh sons of Sampuran Singh sold another land measuring 9 Marlas out of the suit land to him and his sons. In addition to the same, he also purchased a house from one Kartar Singh constructed in an area of 26 Marlas. A plot measuring 3 Kanals owned and possessed by him was also adjoining to the suit land and in that manner lie was in possession of land measuring about 5 Kanals at the disputed site. He had already constructed a residential house at the said site by spending approximately Rs. 1 Lac from his pocket and had been residing in the house alongwith his sons and other members of the family. According to him, the plaintiffs had no concern whatsoever with the land in his possession.

(3.) On the rival contentions of the parties, issues were settled and both the parties led oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their pleadings.