BHANO Vs. JARNAIL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant (plaintiff) claiming 7/20th share, filed a suit for joint possession in land measuring 177 kanals 8 marlas, description of which was given in heading of the plaint. She also prayed that decree for possession of house by way of partition of 3/5th share be also passed in her favour. It was further prayed that decree of permanent injunction be issued in her favour, restraining the respondents (defendants) from alienating, the land, in dispute, to the extent of her share.

(2.) In plaint, she has stated that she is widow of Baggu s/o Jagram, who was the owner in possession of 1/2 share in the land measuring 105 bighas 9 biswas. He died on 15.6.1959. Mutation of inheritance of his estate was sanctioned in favour of the appellant, Tej Kaur daughter, Karnail Singh, Labh Singh, Jarnail Singh his sons, in equal shares uide mutation No. 2731 dated 20.4.1960. Thus, the appellant had become owner to the extent of l/10th share in the suit land. During consolidation in village Bhutal Khurd in the year 1960-61 land measuring 177 kanals 8 marlas was allotted in lieu of 105 bighas 9 biswas, earlier owned by Shri Baggu. About twenty years back, Jarnail Singh son of Baggu had died is- sueless and unmarried, his land was to be inherited by the appellant being his mother. In this manner the appellant had become owner to the extent of l/5th share. However, respondents Tej Kaur, Labh Singh (since deceased) and Karnail Singh respondents, in connivance with the revenue officials got sanctioned mutation No. 3275 dated 28.7.1972 in their names, which fact came to knowledge of the appellant before filing of suit. The respondent Tej Kaur, on 12.6.1964 sold l/8th share vide sale deed No. 1170 in favour of Karnail Singh and Labh Singh (since deceased) exceeding her l/10th share and mutation No. 3341 dated 29.5.1973 was sanctioned on the basis of said sale deed, as such, mutation No. 3275 dated 28.7.1972 and mutation No. 3341 dated 29.5.1973 are illegal, null and void. Further Labh Singh also died in the year 1968 issueless and unmarried. The appellant being mother of said Labh Singh was entitled to inherit the property of Labh Singh. Thus the appellant had become the owner to the extent of 7/20 share in the total land measuring 177 kanals 8 marlas, but respondent Karnail Singh, Tej Kaur again with the connivance of revenue officials got sanctioned the mutation No. 3342 dated 29.5.1973 in their names also. The said mutation is also illegal, null and void. Respondent Tej Kaur had further sold l/16th share after the death of Labh Singh vide registered sale deed No. 329 dated 26.6.1972 to respondent Karnail Singh, when in fact, she was not entitled to inherit any property of Labh Singh. Thus, the sale deed No. 329 dated 26.6.1972 and mutation No. 3382 dated 11.6.1974 sanctioned on the basis of said sale deed was also illegal, null and void. The respondent No. 1 had only 3/20 share in the suit land i.e., 26 kanals 12 marlas, who alienated 19 kanals 6 marlas out of his share to Amarjit Singh son of Raunaq Singh (respondent No. 3) as per his share. Subsequent thereto, respondent No. 1 mortgaged 32 kanals of land vide mortgage deed No. 373 dated 25.6.1984 in favour of respondent Mo. 4, when in fact he had no right to mortgage the land being more than his share. Thus, the mortgage deed is also illegal, null and vccid, without any authority and so is the position of mutation No. 3993 dated 27.3.1985. The respondent No. 1 on the basis of wrong facts sold 19 kanals of land on 15.4.1985 vide sale deed No. 44 in favour of respondents No,'. 5 to 8 and the mutation No. 4005 dated 17.7.1985 was sanctioned on the basis of said sale deed. The respondent No. 1 further sold 4 kanals 4 marlas of land on 30.1.1986 vide sale deed No. 1340 in favour of respondent No. 7 and 8 and also sold 4 kanals 5 marlas of land on 30.1.1986 vide sale deed No. 12140 in favour of respondent No. 7 and 8 and further sold 4 kanals marlas of land on 30.1.1986 vide sale deed No. 3141 in favour of respondent No. 5 and 6 and mutation No. 4096 dated 30.6.1986 was sanctioned in favour of them. The respondent No. 1 again on the basis; of wrong entries in the revenue record sold four kanals of land on 29.12.1986 vide sale deed No. 1316 in favour of respondent No. 9 and further sold 4 kanals of land in favour of respondent No. 10 vide sale deed No. 1317 dated 29.12.1986. The aforesaid sale deeds in favour of respondents No. 5 to 10 and the mutation sanctioned in their favour were illegal, null and void. The house in dispute was also the ownership of Baggu, which had falen down in the rainy season. It has been again constructed by the appellant and the appellant was entitled to get 3/5th share in partition of said house, besides 7/20 share in the total land measuring 177 kanals 8 marlas. However, she impleaded respondent No. 11 to 17 as proforma and no relief was claimed against them.

(3.) After contest, her suit was partly 'decreed. Trial Court, while giving relief to her, has observed as under: