GOPAL SINGH Vs. NASIB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 challenging the judgments and decrees dtd. 27/7/2018 passed by the Trial Court and 12/8/2024 passed by the First Appellate Court, respectively.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-appellants herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in joint possession to the extent of 6/25111 share of land as fully described in the plaint situated in village Dosanjh, Tehsil Moga as well as for permanent injunction restraining defendant-respondent No.l from forcibly, illegally and without due course of law alienating, encumbering, transferring etc. or changing the nature of the suit property. The suit was filed averring therein that the property was originally owned by one Surmukh Singh. Surmukh Singh died and his estate was inherited by his Inder Singh. Inder Singh also died and the estate was, thereafter, inherited by Satnam Singh, Dharam Singh, Amar Singh, Narain Singh and Gumam Singh in equal shares, hence the suit property is claimed to be ancestral, joint Hindu family and coparcenary property in the hands of the aforesaid persons. Satnam Singh son of Inder Singh son of Surmukh Singh was recorded as owner to the extent of l/5th share in the total property, who was the real uncle of the plaintiffs, and he died issueless leaving behind his three brothers, namely, Amar Singh, Narain Singh, Gumam Singh and two sisters, namely, Surjit Kaur and Ram Rakho. Dharam Singh and two sisters, namely, Sant Kaur and Jasvir Kaur pre-deceased Satnam Singh. It was further averred that Satnam Singh was of unsound mind and was not capable of executing any document nor he executed any document during his lifetime. It was further the case set up that Satnam Singh was looked after and served by the plaintiff-appellants and their father and he lived and resided with the plaintiff-appellants. The plaintiff-appellants claimed themselves to be in lawful, peaceful and continuous possession of l/5th share that they had inherited from their father Amar Singh and l/5th share of deceased Satnam Singh. It was further averred that defendant-respondent No. 1 had got some false, forged and fabricated documents regarding the share of Satnam Singh. The plaintiffs requested defendant-respondent No.l a number of times to admit their claim, however, because of his refusal, the necessity to file the present suit arose.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who filed their written statement raising various preliminary objections including that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata as Amar Singh and Gumam Singh had filed a civil suit bearing RT No. 1259 of 15/6/2011 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dtd. 13/2/2012. On an appeal preferred by the present plaintiffs, the case was remanded by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 18/4/2013. The Trial Court once again vide judgment and decree dtd. 17/2/2014 dismissed the suit. It was further averred that the earlier litigation was also filed challenging the transfer deed bearing No.7378 and the present suit is also regarding the same dispute, although giving it a different colour. It was denied that the property was ancestral, joint Hindu family coparcenary property. It was further the case set up that Satnam Singh transferred his share in the suit property in favour of defendant-respondent No. 1 by virtue of transfer deed dtd. 28/12/2005.