BEANT SINGH Vs. ATMA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 18.12.2013 passed by District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 passed by the lower court, was set aside, wherein suit of plaintiff Beant Singh, appellant herein, for seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendant Atma Singh, respondent herein, from interfering in his exclusive possession over 3 Kanal 2 Marlas of land detailed and described in the head note of the plaint till partition in due course of law, had been decreed by the lower court.

(2.) CLAIM of the plaintiff -appellant in the suit was that Atma Singh, defendant -respondent, and his deceased brother Piara Singh were the joint owners of land in village Kainthan. Said Piara Singh sold 3 Kanal 12 Marlas of land comprised in 188/306, 189/307, 190/308, 309 and 733/1090 to the plaintiff -appellant for a total consideration of Rs. 15,000/ - vide registered sale deed dated 3.7.1989 with 1/2 share of tubewell bore, engine, fan, band alongwith right of passage and water channel. It was further pleaded that exclusive possession of 3 Kanal 12 Marlas of land comprised in Rectangle No. 50//4/1 (7 -18) was handed over to the plaintiff -appellant. Since then, he was claiming himself to be in exclusive peaceful possession thereon. It was further pleaded by him that sugarcane and paddy crop was cultivated by him in the said land. Now after the death of Piara Singh, defendant -respondent Atma Singh purchased some land from widow of Piara Singh. The defendant -respondent was bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff -appellant from the suit land forcibly. He had also demolished the passage being used by the plaintiff -appellant thereby causing loss to him to the tune of Rs. 80,000/ -.

(3.) THE aforesaid claim of the plaintiff -appellant was contested by the defendant -respondent in his written statement wherein exclusive possession of the plaintiff -appellant had been denied, whereas it had been averred that the defendant -respondent and his wife were recorded joint owners in the suit land. It was further mentioned that Piara Singh vendor of the plaintiff had no right to sell tubewell bore, engine etc. Certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, plaintiff having not come to the court with clean hands and having no cause of action to file the suit had also been taken. Dismissal of the suit had been sought.