INDERJIT SINGH Vs. VANDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.3889 -C -2015

(2.) THE dispute is that the 1st Defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant. It is alleged that latter married 1st defendant in the year 1988 and together they set up their matrimonial home in Shahdara, Delhi and two children were born to them in Delhi. The plaintiff claims title to property on the basis of a family settlement executed during the life time of Gurbachan Singh whereby the 2nd defendant opted to take moveable property consisting of gold and valuable articles instead of a share in the corpus since he wanted to settle down permanently in Delhi. On receiving valuable articles, 1st defendant is said to have relinquished his rights in the corpus in favour of the plaintiff and the 3rd and 4th defendants who are proforma defendants and are, therefore, proforma respondents in this second appeal.

(3.) THE 1st and 2nd defendants raised a dispute with respect to the corpus and are alleged to have taken forcible possession of a portion of the property which led the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamunanagar at Jagadhri claiming title with the consequential relief of possession. In these circumstances, there is no dispute that the 1st and 2nd defendants are in possession of a portion of the suit property and the only question on which the parties went to trial was with respect to title claimed exclusively by the plaintiff and denied by the contesting defendants. There can also not be a dispute that the parties inherited by survivorship and Hindu succession from Gurbachan Singh on his death.