JASPAL SINGH Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff of the suit is before this Court against the reversal of findings by the appellate court, inasmuch as though, the suit filed by him seeking decree for declaration & permanent injunction regarding property in dispute, was decreed by the trial Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sunam, on 17/4/1996, but accepting the appeal filed by the defendants -respondents, the suit was dismissed by the First Appellate Court of learned District Judge, Sangrur on 3/9/1998.

(2.) To avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

(3.) On perusal of the paper book, the facts which emerge are that a consent decree dtd. 11/9/1993 in respect of suit land situated in village Chhajli, Tehsil Sunam, detailed in head note of the plaint was suffered by plaintiff -Jaspal Singh (appellant herein) in favour of defendant No.l -Kuldeep Singh (minor) [respondent No.l herein], passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Sangrur. Present suit was filed by Jaspal Singh alleging the above-said decree dtd. 11/9/1993 to be null and void, having no effect on his rights in the suit land. It was alleged that defendant No.l -Kuldeep Singh was not his son. Rather, he was son of defendant No.3 - Sinder Kaur (respondent No.3 herein) from her husband, who had since expired. After the death of her husband, said Sinder Kaur had started residing with the plaintiff on the promise that he will bequeath 08 kanals of his land in lieu of maintenance in her favour. In view of this agreement, defendant No.3 - Sinder Kaur started living with him as his wife. It was alleged further that after some time, defendant No.2 - Jangir Kaur (respondent No.2 herein), the mother of Sinder Kaur approached the plaintiff and asked to fulfill the promise of making Will. It was alleged that plaintiff was taken to Sunam by defendant No.2 accompanied by her son Karnail Singh and Sarpanch of village Dhanauli Kalan and thumb impressions of the plaintiff were obtained on some papers. Later on, defendant No.3 refused to join his company and rather, defendants started proclaiming that they had got decree in favour of defendant No.1 by showing defendant No.1 as his (plaintiff's) son. With these allegations, plaintiff prayed for decree of declaration to the effect that decree dtd. 11/9/1993 was null and void and not binding upon him and further prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain defendant No.1 from dealing with the suit property on the basis of aforesaid decree.