SATBIR SINGH Vs. RAM PHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is in second appeal.

(2.) Plaintiff filed suit for declaration with the consequential relief of permanent injunction. As per plaintiff, the parties are related to each other and constitute joint hindu family. Defendant No.3 Himmat Singh was karta of family. The joint hindu family is owner in possession of the properties as described in the plaint. Defendant No.3 suffered consent decree qua some of the properties in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 on 26/4/1986. Decree dtd. 26/4/1986 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. As per plaintiff, neither defendant No.3 had any right to alienate the HUF property without any legal necessity nor there was any family settlement to found basis of the impugned decree.

(3.) Suit was contested by the defendants. Relationship was admitted. However, it was denied that the parties to the suit constitute HUF. As per defendants, defendant No.3 was absolute owner of the property in dispute. He divided the properties in equal shares in between all his sons. Property in village Anwal was purchased in the name of wife of the plaintiff on 27/3/1974. Property in dispute came to the share of defendant No.1 and 2 in family settlement which was recognized in decree dtd. 26/4/1986. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial framing following issues:-