SURINDER SINGH Vs. UJAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant- defendant against the judgment and decree dtd. 9/10/1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed and the judgment and decree dtd. 26/8/1994 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Rupnagar, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, were set aside.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Chamela Singh was the owner of the suit land. The plaintiff Ujagar Singh and defendants No.2 to 4 are his sons, defendants No.5 to 7 are his daughters, and defendant No.1 Surinder Singh is his grandson, being the son of defendant No.4 Pritam Singh. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession claiming that the suit property was joint Hindu family coparcenary property in which he had a share by birth and further pleaded that Chamela Singh was competent only to the extent of his share and had no right to alienate the entire property. It was alleged that a decree dtd. 20/12/1986 had been obtained by defendant No.1 Surinder Singh in collusion with Chamela Singh on the basis of wrong facts and that the said decree was illegal, void, inoperative and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed that he was entitled to possession of 1/4th share in the suit land measuring 60 kanals 1 marla and sought a declaration to that effect.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and denied that the suit property was ancestral or coparcenary. It was specifically pleaded that the suit land was the self-acquired property of Chamela Singh, who was its exclusive and absolute owner. It was pleaded that during his lifetime, Chamela Singh, out of love and affection and in view of the services rendered by defendant No.1 Surinder Singh, entered into a family arrangement in June 1986 and gave the suit property to him. In order to give effect to the said family arrangement, defendant No.1 filed a civil suit against Chamela Singh, which was decreed on 20/12/1986 with the consent of Chamela Singh. It was pleaded that pursuant thereto defendant No.1 became owner in possession of the suit land and that the plaintiff had already been separated during the lifetime of Chamela Singh after receiving his share and was estopped from filing the present suit.