BHOOP SINGH Vs. RAM SINGH MAJOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeals No. 1549 and 1273 of 1979 as the same arise out of the common judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Hissar dated 18.12.1978.

(2.) BHOOP Singh had filed the said suit against Ganpat for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the property mentioned in the head note of the plaint and on the death of Ganpat hie would become owner of the said suit property and the defendant would be deemed to be owner of the said property from the date of filing of the suit. He had prayed that his name may be mutated in the revenue record. It is also alleged that in that suit that Ganpat had then no brother or sister and was staying with Bhoop Singh. He also contended that Bhoop Singh was rendering service to Ganpat. It is also contended that because of this, Ganpat was very much pleased with him, and six months before he had promised to transfer the said property in favour of Bhoop Singh. It is also contended that Ganpat had promised Bhoop Singh that on the death of Ganpat, he will be deemed to be in possession of the said property. Bhoop Singh had further pleaded that because the intentions of Ganpat changed, be had to file the suit. He also prayed for declaration that he had become owner in possession of the suit property. A certified copy of the plaint has been produced in the suit at Ex.P.1, whereas Ex.P.5 is the decree passed in the suit and it shows that the decree was passed in favour of Bhoop Singh in view of the written statement filed by Ganpat defendant The operative part of the decree is as below:

(3.) IT is also contended that the value of the suit -land was more than Rs. 100/ -and without registration of the property, the rights could not be transferred merely because the decree dated 6.4.1973 had been passed by the competent court. It is also contended that the defendants did not recognize the share of the plaintiffs in the land in suit and started interfering in possession of the plaintiffs and hence this suit for declaration was filed. In the alternative, it is prayed that if the property is believed to be in possession of the defendants, the possession of the same be awarded to the plaintiffs.