LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-348

TEJA SINGH Vs. JARNAIL KAUR AND ORS.

Decided On March 04, 2015
TEJA SINGH Appellant
V/S
Jarnail Kaur And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was an appeal preferred by Teja Singh son of Kaur Singh, appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") impugning the judgment and decree dated 20.10.1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, allowing the appeal with costs, preferred by Kaur Singh son of Narain Singh, respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff") against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1985 of Sub Judge 1st Class, Mansa, vide which civil suit for declaration of plaintiff Kaur Singh was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(2.) The facts garnered from the record are as under:- Plaintiff Kaur Singh (since deceased) was owner in possession of 1/3rd share in land measuring 319 Kanals 8 Marlas, situated in the area of village Jaurkian, (fully described in the head note of the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the "suit land"). Teja Singh-defendant was his son. The plaintiff alleged that while he was an illiterate and simpleton person, his son Teja Singh was a clever man. His son had no concern whatsoever with the suit land owned and possessed by him and he had also never delivered possession of the suit land to him. The plaintiff further pleaded that Teja Singh filed Suit No.108 of 11.02.1982 in respect of the suit land and got a decree dated 30.04.1982 suffered in his favour fraudulently in order to cause loss to him. The said decree was challenged by the plaintiff as wrong and illegal having no effect on his rights. He alleged that he had never given the suit land to his son Teja Singh by partition, rather he himself continued to be in possession as owner.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant-Teja Singh inter-alia on the grounds that his father Kaur Singh of his own free will had filed written statement and made statement in the Court in Suit No.108 of 11.02.1982. As such, the decree dated 30.04.1982 was legally passed in his favour. He denied that he committed any fraud upon his father or that only 1/3rd share out of the 1/3rd share of his father in the suit land was to be given to him. As per his claim, his father Kaur Singh had given him his entire 1/3rd share in the suit land by way of family partition. By virtue of the same, he had become owner in possession of the suit land and his father was left with no concern whatsoever with the same and was estopped from filing the present suit. A plea that the suit was barred under Order 23 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "C.P.C.") was also raised besides alleging that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.