HUKAM CHAND Vs. NAFE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2008 of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Bahadurgarh, whereby his suit for permanent injunction was dismissed. Further challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2010 of the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(2.) THE appellant filed the instant suit claiming himself to be owner in possession of the suit property as described in the plaint stating that the suit property was given to him in family partition but Lakhmi Chand, his brother, alienated the suit property orally in favour of Laxmi Narayan son of Shri Ram resident of village Balour, Tehsil Bahadurgarh without any right or authority. Thus, the dispute arose and in order to settle the family dispute said Lakhmi Chand got the property shown with red colour in exchange from the aforesaid Laxmi Narayan by way of exchange deed dated 19.8.1982. He was given possession of red portion of the suit property by his brother on 15.10.1982 as owner by way of family settlement of the even date whereas remaining land of Green colour was later on purchased by the plaintiff himself verbally from said Laxmi Narayan. It was further averred that after coming into possession over the suit property, he was enjoying his possession peacefully but defendants, who are strong headed persons were interfering into his peaceful possession without any right or authority to do so. Despite requests made, they remained adamant and were threatening to open a door in the eastern wall of the house and the defendants finally refused to accede to his request on 17.7.2004. Hence, the present suit.

(3.) IN the written statement defendant No. 1 admitted execution of exchange deed dated 19.8.1982 between Laxmi Narayan and Lakhmi Chand but all other averments were denied. It was further contended that site plan showing the suit property was not correct and defendant No. 1 was in possession of the property as shown in the site plan attached with the written statement. Execution of the family settlement dated 15.10.1982 was denied stating that the same has been concocted to deprive the defendants of their rights in the property received by them by way of exchange. It was further stated that the ancestral property was already partitioned between the father of the defendants, plaintiff and other co -sharers in the year 1955. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.