BALBIR SINGH Vs. BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge accepting the appeal thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for.

(2.) Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of 1/6th share of the suit land or in the alternative 1/12th share of 118 Kanals 9 Marlas and for permanent injunction restraining Balbir Singh-defendant from alienating any specific portion thereof. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Phuman Singh was predecessors of the parties. He was succeeded by Jaswant Singh. Jaswant Singh had two sons, namely, Balbir Singh and Hakam Singh. Plaintiffs are sons of Hakam Singh. According to the plaintiffs, their father Hakam Singh and Balbir Singh constitute a joint Hindu family. The Joint Hindu family had sufficient agricultural coparcenary property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Jaswant Singh purchased about 24 bighas of land from one Mangal Singh vide registered sale deed from the income of the coparcenary property. This sale deed was executed in the name of Hakam Singh and Balbir Singh in the ratio of 1:2. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that as soon as the error came to the notice of Hakam Singh, he raised hue and cry and ultimately the matter was amicably settled with the help of panchayat and so a valid family settlement was effected. As per this family settlement, it was agreed that Jaswant Singh, Balbir Singh and Hakam Singh shall have 1/3rd share in the disputed land. Resolution No. 88 dated 17.3.1969 was passed by the Panchayat in this respect. Jaswant Singh died 10 years back and so his share has devolved upon his heirs. After another six month. Hakam Singh too died and at that time Rajinder Singh plaintiff was minor and so was residing with his uncle. In fact, Baldev Singh and Rajinder Singh were minors.

(3.) Defendant filed written statement pleading that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary party; that the suit is not property valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction; that the suit is barred by time; and that the plaintiffs have no cause of action. On merit, it was stated that the parties were separate in mess and residence and that the land was purchased with the finances provided by him and Hakam Singh. In fact, Hakam Singh and Balbir Singh had been separately cultivating. The defendant further asserted that he has 2/3rd share in the sale dated 28.12.1956. The defendant further denied that shares in the sale deed have been the result of clerical mistake. The defendant denied the settlement dated 17.3.1969 as well as the latest settlement dated 17.4.1973.