JAGTAR SINGH Vs. PARAMJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM NO. 11693 -C OF 2013

(2.) THE application stands allowed and the legal heirs of deceased Nachhattar Singh -respondent No.1, as mentioned in para no.2 of the application, are ordered to be impleaded as party -respondents. Necessary correction be made in the memo of parties.

(3.) BRIEF resume of the case is that the plaintiff, defendant No.2 constituted a Joint Hindu Family of which defendant No.1 is Karta. The suit land as described in the head note of plaint is Joint Hindu Family and ancestral coparcenary property. So the same cannot be alienated without any benefit of Joint Family. The property in dispute was inherited by defendant No.1 from his father Arjan Singh through survivorship. Mutation No. 969 was sanctioned in favour of Mohinder Singh and others. The property situated at village Kot Sekhon, after the death of Arjan Singh, was inherited by Nachhattar Singh and others. Nachhattar Singh exchanged his share of property in dispute with Balbir Singh and Naranjan Singh vide Mutation No. 1229. The land is Joint Hindu Family and ancestral coparcenary property as the land given in exchange was also Joint Hindu Family and ancestral coparcenary property. The plaintiff being coparcener has right over the property in dispute. It is further alleged that defendant No.2 with mala fide intention obtained power of attorney from defendant No.1 on 01.04.2003 and executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 and 5 regarding the land measuring 02 kanals 0 Marlas on 28.04.2003 without any legal necessity. He further executed sale deed dated 30.04.2003 regarding land measuring 6 kanals 19 -1/2 marlas in favour of defendant No.3, who further mortgaged with possession land measuring 06 kanal 01 marla vide mortgage deed dated 09.06.2003 for Rs. 70,000/ - without paying anything. The amount was mentioned to create false evidence. The sale deeds and mortgage deed and the mutation sanctioned on their basis are illegal, null, void and are liable to be set aside. The plaintiff requested the defendants to treat the aforesaid charge over the property in dispute to which they have no right.