JUJHAR SINGH Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM-15369-C-2017 Prayer in the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is to implead the applicant Tejinder Kaur as respondent No. 2.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the present suit seeking declaration to the effect that "the plaintiff is joint owner in joint possession to the extent of 7 Kanals 41/2 marlas with measurement of 1 Karam = 571/2" being the equal area of 5 Kanals 10 marlas with measurement 1 Karam = 66 " qua share of Balkishan son of Joga Singh and purchased by the plaintiff vide registered Sale Deed dtd. 13/10/1997..." out of the Khasra Nos. as detailed in the plaint. Further relief of permanent injunction was sought restraining the defendant from denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit land.

(3.) It was pleaded in the plaint that Balkishan (now deceased) father of Swaran Singh defendant, was joint owner in possession of the suit land as detailed in the head note of the plaint to the extent of 1/4th share. Balkishan had sold land measuring 5 Kanals 10 Marlas with measurement of 1 Karam was = 66" for consideration of Rs.69,000.00 vide registered Sale Deed dtd. 13/10/1997. It was pleaded that at that time, consolidation was in progress. As such, the old measurement of 1 Karam = 571/2" was converted to new measurement of 1 Karam = 66". Accordingly, Sale Deed was executed as per new measurement. During consolidation, new khasra Nos. were carved out. Subsequently, the said consolidation was de-notified by the Government. After withdrawal of the consolidation proceedings vide Notification Ex.P3, the old scale prescribing 1 karam equivalent to 571/2" came to be restored in the matter of the measurement of the area of land situated in village Himmatpur. And thus, the area measuring 5 Kanal and 10 Marlas purchased by appellant/plaintiff stood converted into equivalent to the area measuring 7 kanal 41/2 marlas. However, the revenue authorities inadvertently sanctioned mutation of only 5K 10 Marlas in the name of the plaintiff instead of 7K 41/2 M. The plaintiff had repeatedly approached the defendant to make good the deficiency and not to deny the title of the plaintiff as per the Sale Deed, but to no avail. Hence, the present Suit was filed on 15/12/2008.