GULZARI LAL Vs. AMAR NATH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in the present regular second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Rupnagar, affirming the judgment and decree dated 2.8.2011, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Anandpur Sahib, vide which, suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed and the plaintiff was declared to be joint owner / co-sharer in joint possession along with his brother defendant No. 2, mother, three sisters and legal heirs of deceased sister Kishan Dei in the suit property measuring 19 kanals 5 marlas comprising of khewat No. 17 khatoni No. 33 khasra No. 503 situated in village Dhanehra, Hadbast No. 325 Tehsil Anandpur Sahib District Ropar. The sale deed dated 31.10.2001 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was held to be illegal, without consideration and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and accordingly entries in the mutation were held to be illegal. Defendants were further restrained from alienating the suit property more than their share or raise any construction on specific portion without getting it partitioned and if any construction is raised by any defendant on any specific portion and in the partition proceedings that portion comes to the share of the other co-owner, he will deliver the possession of the same without claiming any compensation.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Bhagat Ram - defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed dated 31.10.2001 in favour of his son Gulzari Lal - defendant No. 2. The plaintiff, who is also son of Bhagat Ram challenged the sale deed stating that it was Joint Hindu Coparcenary property. It was purchased in the name of defendant No. 1 out of the Joint Hindu Family Funds in the year 1975 on the payment of Rs. 5000/- to the custodian authority payable in half yearly installments on Rs. 250/- each. At that time, plaintiff was 20 years of age and defendant No. 2 was 11 years of age. Plaintiff worked hard and made the land cultivable.

(3.) Upon notice, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and filed joint written statement in which it was denied that the suit property is joint hindu family property or ancestral property. Defendant No. 1 claimed that it is self acquired property of defendant No. 1. It was stated that the sale deed was rightly executed in favour of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 stated that he had arranged the marriage of four daughters but plaintiff never extended any help to him in these marriages, whereas defendant No. 2 extended necessary assistance. Plaintiff got false application filed from his mother Rakho under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to pressurize defendant No. 1 to give suit land to him. In the said application, the defendants were ordered to pay Rs. 250/- per month to Rakho vide order dated 6.3.2002.