LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-762

RAJINDER PAL SINGH Vs. PIRTHI SINGH AND ANOTHER

Decided On August 05, 2015
RAJINDER PAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
Pirthi Singh And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant herein (plaintiff) against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2011 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur vide which the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed with costs; and judgment and decree dated 19.10.2012 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide which the appeal preferred against the abovesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed with costs.

(2.) The case of the appellant herein (plaintiff) before the learned trial Court in brief was that previously his father Malkiat Singh was the coowner in the entire land in dispute. After his death, the appellant entered into the possession of this land and is in its cultivating possession. On 10.06.2004, respondent No.1 herein (defendant No.1) executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 herein (defendant No.2) regarding the entire suit land. In the said sale deed it was recorded that respondent No.1 is a coowner of the land measuring 1 kanal 7 marlas i.e. (1/6 share) in the land bearing Khasra No.83/25min (8-0). The main grievance of the appellant herein (plaintiff) in this suit was that the abovesaid respondent No.1-herein (defendant No.1) had delivered the possession of the land measuring 4 kanals out of abovesaid land bearing khasra No.83/25min, while he was holding only 1/6 share in the land of that khasra number i.e. 1 kanal 7 marlas. The said act on the part of respondent No.1 herein (defendant No.1) is stated to be wrong as well as illegal. Even the appellant has also lodged a criminal complaint against him and others, which is stated to be pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur. Now the defendants were threatening to dispossess the appellant from the land measuring 4 kanals comprised of khasra No.83/25min illegally and forcibly. Hence was the instant suit.

(3.) On notice, respondent No.1-herein (defendant No.1) admitted that Malkiat Singh was co-owner of suit land. It is further his contention that prior to the execution of the abovesaid sale deed dated 10.06.2004, the answering respondent No.1-herein (defendant No.1) was in exclusive possession of the land measuring 4 kanals comprising in khasra No.83/25min (8-0) under family arrangement/settlement and as such, he delivered the possession of this land to respondent No.2-herein (defendant No.2) at the time of execution of the said sale deed.