SARDUL SINGH Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M.No.1609 -C -2014

(2.) C .M.No1610 -C -2014

(3.) MR . B.B.S.Sobti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant -plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff along with his sisters defendants No.6 and 7 and defendants No.3 to 5 were co -shares in joint possession of the suit property and in the month of April 2009, when appellant -plaintiff requested defendants No.1 and 2 to vacate the suit property and hand over its possession to him as well as to the defendants No.6 and 7, as they wanted to give the same on lease to some other person, who offered good price, but they refused and claimed to have become owners of the suit property on the basis of judgment and decree dated 31.03.1992. After making enquiries, ascertained, that mutation No.5912 had also been sanctioned in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. It transpired that appellant/plaintiff and defendants No.6 and 7 did not have the knowledge of the pendency of the said suit nor received any summons either through ordinary post or registered A.D. much less engaged Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh, Advocate as counsel to contest the Civil Suit No.25 of 1991, neither they appeared in the aforementioned proceedings as well as entered into compromise Ex.CX. Mr. Sobti, also submitted that no family settlement had taken place. According to him, defendants in the written statement had taken a vague plea of bonafide owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of the decree as the plaintiff along with defendants No.6 and 7 left their share in the suit property for consideration of Rs. 20,000/ -which was received from the father of defendants and thus, decree was not legitimate much less bonafide.