LAWS(P&H)-2025-2-17

BALDEV SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

Decided On February 10, 2025
BALDEV SINGH Appellant
V/S
AMAR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit for declaration regarding property in dispute filed by plaintiffs Amar Singh etc. (contesting respondents No.1 to 4 herein) was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment & decree dtd. 3/2/1988. However, the appeal filed by the said plaintiffs was partly accepted by the First Appellate Court on 6/12/1988, giving rise to the present Regular Second Appeal by some of the contesting defendants (appellants herein), impleading other contesting defendants as proforma respondents N: 6 & 7.

(2.) Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. In order to avoid any confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

(3.) Plaintiffs are sons of defendant No.1 - Gurbax Singh (proforma respondent N: 5 herein). They constituted a joint Hindu family with Gurbax Singh as its Karta. Suit property in the hands of Gurbax Singh was Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property and being managed by Gurbax Singh as its Karta. Gurbax Singh was convicted for committing double murder of Balbir Singh and Hari Singh and was undergoing life imprisonment. Legal heirs of Balbir Singh (defendants No.2 to 7-appellants and proforma respondents N: 6 & 7 herein) brought a suit for compensation. Suit was decreed on 24/4/1980 for compensation of Rs.60,000.00 vide Ex.DZ/2, which was later on reduced by the appellate Court to Rs.35,000.00. In order to realize the said amount, the decree holders-legal heirs of Balbir Singh brought the execution and in the execution proceedings, the suit property i.e. Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property of the plaintiffs was put to auction vide order dtd. 13/6/1983. Plaintiffs' filed objections in the said Execution petition, but the same was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dtd. 8/12/1983 vide Ex.P17 holding that objections had been filed just to delay the execution proceedings. The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Court on 28/2/1984 vide Ex.DZ/1 and there is nothing to show that the said order was further challenged.