BALDEV SINGH Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for possession of the property in dispute was dismissed.

(2.) As per the averments made, Sukhdev Singh, real brother of the appellant, was owner in possession of the plot/house in dispute measuring 20' x 96' which he purchased vide sale deed dated 15.07.1974. Said Sukhdev Singh was married to Subhadra Rani but was issueless. Sukhdev Singh died on 02.12.1994 and after his death, Ramesh Kumar @ Harmesh Kumar in connivance with Subhadra Rani got mutated 1/2 share of the house in dispute in the name of Surinder Singh defendant, who had no relation with Sukhdev Singh. Subhadra Rani further sold 1/2 share of the house in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 09.04.2003 in favour of Kewal Krishan son of Banarsi Dass resident of Mansa. It is further case of the plaintiff-appellant that Subhadra Rani in connivance with her brother got permission from the Court on 11.11.2003 to sell 1/2 share of the house which stood in the name of defendant, wrongly showing him the son of Sukhdev Singh though she was not entitled to do so. On the basis of the said permission, Subhadra Rani sold 1/2 share of the house in dispute vide sale deed dated 09.01.2004 in favour of Daya Rani daughter of Paras Ram resident of Mansa and also purchased a house measuring 18' x 48' vide sale deed dated 09.01.2004 in the name of the defendant. Subhadra Rani died issueless on 26.05.2005. She had inherited the property of Sukhdev Singh as his sole heir and after her death plaintiff is entitled to inherit the property in dispute, as the defendant is son of Harmesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar. The house in the name of defendant has been purchased by selling the property of Sukhdev Singh, brother of the plaintiff. The defendant has wrongly shown himself to be the son of Sukhdev Singh and thus, the plaintiff was entitled to inherit the property of Subhadra Rani (since deceased). According to the plaintiff, he came to know about the aforesaid facts on 25.11.2005 when he collected the revenue record. He asked the defendant to get the revenue record corrected and hand over the possession of the house in question to him, however, the defendant flatly refused to do so. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession of the property in dispute on the basis of inheritance of Subhadra Rani deceased in his favour.

(3.) Upon notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. It was averred that the defendant was taken in adoption by deceased Sukhdev Singh and Subhadra Rani since his birth. However, during the lifetime of Sukhdev Singh, the adoption deed could not be executed. The adoption deed was executed on 19.12.1994 after the death of Sukhdev Singh and was registered as per law. Thus, the defendant was adopted son of deceased Sukhdev Singh and Subhadra Rani. It was further averred that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant, who was lawful owner in possession of the house in dispute, which was purchased by the deceased. The suit had been filed out of greed and the same was not maintainable. It was further averred that after the death of Sukhdev Singh, Subhadra Rani obtained a legal heir certificate from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, wherein she mentioned defendant Surinder Singh as her son and legal heir of Sukhdev Singh along with herself. After the death of Sukhdev Singh, his property devolved upon his legal heirs i.e. Subhadra Rani and Surinder Singh-defendant to the extent of 1/2 share each, and thus, mutation of inheritance was rightly sanctioned. The defendant admitted the sale of plot to the extent of half share. Rest of the averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.