RESHAM KAUR Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court and vide same judgment and decree dated 21.02.2012, counter claim preferred by defendant No.1 i.e. Resham Kaur was dismissed. Being aggrieved, defendant No.1 -Resham Kaur preferred two separate appeals which were dismissed by learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2012. That is how, defendant No.1 is before this Court in these two Regular Second Appeals. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit. In a suit filed by plaintiff -Harbhajan Singh, he claimed a decree for injunction simpliciter, restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the land measuring 4 kanal 3 marlas, situated at village Palli Jhikki, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr. It was averred that Chinta, father of the plaintiff, was the owner in possession of the suit property and he sold the same to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 09.06.2003. Accordingly, plaintiff was put in possession of the suit land and since then, he continues to be in actual physical possession thereof and has sown the janter crop in the said land. It was maintained that the suit land was the self -acquired property of Chinta. Defendant No.1 happened to be the widow of the real brother of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 were her daughters. Father of the plaintiff, vide registered sale deed dated 09.10.1991, had also transferred the land measuring 4 kanal 9 marlas in favour of Amar Nath. Post death of Amar Nath on 07.07.2002, defendants being his heirs have succeeded to his estate. Thus, they had no right, title or interest in the suit property.

(2.) DEFENDANTS pleaded, inter alia, that although the suit property was owned by Chinta, but he had bequeathed the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 in a family settlement after her marriage with Amar Nath i.e. about 24 years back, as Amar Nath was not keeping good health. In fact, the suit land was given to defendant No.1 in recognition of her pre -existing right of maintenance by way of family settlement. Since the land in question was a Joint Hindu Family property in the hands of Chinta, he had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) BEING dissatisfied with the said decree, defendant No.1 filed two separate appeals. Learned first appellate court reviewed the matter in issue, evidence on record and on an analysis thereof found itself in concurrence with the view drawn by the trial court and the findings recorded in support thereof. It was reiterated that the sale deed dated 09.06.2003, executed by Chinta in favour of the plaintiff, are duly proved. Defendants had failed to prove that the property, indeed, was ancestral in the hands of Chinta. Possession of the plaintiff was found to have been proved on the basis of the statement of none other than defendant No.1 herself (Ex.P8). Nothing was brought on record by her to substantiate that she had actually acquired title in the suit property pursuant to any family settlement between Chinta and herself. In any case, she did not choose to appear in the witness box and depose in support of her case. Accordingly, appeals being bereft of merit were dismissed.