ASHOK Vs. ANOOP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.2012. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed on 25.07.2013. This is how, plaintiff is before this court, in this regular second appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) IN a suit filed by the plaintiff, he prayed for a decree for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to vacate the suit property, comprised in khasra No.66//7/2 (1 -12), measuring 0 kanal 9 marla, depicted by letters ABCD in the site plan, appended with the plaint. Further, a decree for permanent injunction was also claimed, restraining defendant from raising any sort of construction over the suit property. It was averred that plaintiff had purchased the suit land, vide a registered sale deed dated 26.06.2006. Accordingly, mutation No.3408 dated 12.07.2008, was sanctioned in his favour. Plaintiff constructed his residential house over the said property and he was shown as owner thereof in the record of rights. It was maintained that around 3/4 years ago, defendant started residing in the house of the plaintiff on the pretext that he would have a separate house constructed for himself and would then, vacate the suit property. As defendant happened to be the real brother of the plaintiff, he was permitted to reside in the suit property. But as defendant was bent upon to raise further construction in the said house and change its nature, thus, the suit.

(3.) IN defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that Rattan Singh was the grandfather of the parties and had four sons and three daughters. The land measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas, comprised in khasra No.66/7 min (1 -12), situated at village Kharak Kaur, was purchased by him from one Partap Singh, vide a registered sale deed dated 27.10.1972. He had constructed three houses over the said land. Out of the said three houses, Madan Pal Singh i.e. his son has been residing in one house, in the second house his second son Chanderpal Singh was residing and the third house was given to Dharampal Singh i.e. father of the parties. A family settlement was alleged to have taken place about 15/16 years ago between the parties and pursuant thereto half portion of the house in question was fallen to the share of the defendant and resultantly, he has been residing therein. The electricity connection installed in the said house was in the name of the defendant, and even ration card and voter -list showed defendant to be residing in the said house. It was maintained that the suit property was ancestral in the hands of Dharampal Singh and thus, defendant had a right therein by birth. And, therefore, Dharampal Singh had no right to alienate the same except for a legal necessity. Sale deed, if any, executed by Dharampal Singh or Smt. Beero, was wholly illegal, void and fictitious document.