PHOOL SINGH Vs. RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal (RSA) has been filed by the plaintiff against dismissal of his suit by the Courts below. The suit was filed with regard to the estate of Ajmer Singh son of Ram Kishan.

(2.) To understand the dispute between the parties it would be appropriate to refer to the pedigree table of the family. Ram Kishan was owner of the land measuring 235 kanals 5 marlas and had four sons and two daughters. The estate of Ram Kishan was inherited by his four sons, Ajmer Singh, Jagdish, Mehar Singh and Phool Singh in equal shares. Phool Singh appellant is the plaintiff. Respondent-defendants no. 6 and 7 are the daughters of Ram Kishan and they were ex parte before the trial Court. It was stated that the property held by Ajmer Singh and other sons of Ram Kishan was ancestral and joint Hindu family property. Ajmer Singh was also owner of one half share of the land measuring 6 kanals 9 marlas. It was stated that Ajmer Singh during his life time gave one half share of his property to the plaintiff-appellant and other half share to the respondent-defendants no. 1 to 5. Respondent-defendants no. 1 to 5 are the sons of Jagdish Ram son of Ram Kishan. It was further stated that the appellant and respondent-defendants no. 1 to 5 are in possession of the land which was given in the family settlement by Ajmer Singh. The appellant learnt about a decree dated 26.08.1989 in Civil Suit no. 477 of 1989, allegedly suffered by Ajmer Singh in favour of respondent-defendants no. 1 to 5, just about six months before institution of the suit. The suit was filed on 16.01.2007.

(3.) Prayer in the suit filed by the appellant was mainly to challenge the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1989, suffered by Ajmer Singh in favour of respondent-defendants no. 1 to 5. It was stated that Ajmer Singh had no right to disinherit the appellant from the said property and respondents no. 1 to 5 were not having any pre-existing right in the property held in the name of Ajmer Singh. The decree which purports to transfer the property for Rs. 100/- cannot be looked into as the decree was not registered. It was even stated that judgment is forged and fabricated as Ajmer Singh did not file written statement nor appeared in the Court making statement admitting the claim of respondent-defendants no.1 to 5. Ajmer Singh was also not in sound deposing mind as he was feeble and week and not in a position to understand the consequences of any such suit.