HARGURSHARAN SINGH Vs. LT. COL. HARGOBIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh, has been dismissed.

(2.) Appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of 50% share of house/plot no.1394, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh. He has also sought the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling/mortgaging/alienating the aforesaid house/plot in any manner without the written consent of the plaintiff and further to restrain him from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. He also sought the decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to get the name of the plaintiff entered in the revenue record and the record of the Estate Office, Chandigarh as 50% share holder in the aforesaid disputed property.

(3.) As per averments in the plaint, the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent were the real brothers having no other brother. The defendant joined the Army in young age and plaintiff helped his father as well as was cultivating the agricultural land. In the year 1968, defendant approached the plaintiff with an idea that they should purchase some property outside their native village and proposed to buy house in a modern city like Delhi or Chandigarh. He told that he was eligible for allotment of plot in defence quota at Chandigarh. He proposed that if the plaintiff pays money to him, he shall buy a plot and construct the house in Chandigarh as their children will study in good city. Defendant represented that both of them shall be joint owner of the plot and house purchased and constructed by the money of the plaintiff. The plaintiff believed and trusted his elder brother blindly and gave him Rs. 48,000.00 in cash out of his income and funds earned from agriculture on the promise that defendant shall buy the plot in Chandigarh in the joint names of the plaintiff and defendant showing both of them as owner to the extent of 50%. Later on, he came to know that defendant has purchased/got allotted a two canal plot out of the said money. Defendant told that the said plot has been purchased solely in his name as the rules does not allow the allotment of the plot of quota of defence personnel in the name of anybody, who does not belong to the defence services. Thereafter, they decided that they will put their entire transaction in writing, so that there may not be any dispute in future and both the brothers would keep their share to the extent of 50% each. Ultimately, a family settlement regarding the aforesaid plot/house in question was executed between the parties in the presence of the witnesses on 10.11.1970, which was executed by defendant out of his free will since he felt morally bound and obliged as all the money for buying as well as for raising construction thereupon was raised by the plaintiff. Defendant also gave an undertaking that he will get 50% share of the demised property entered in the records in the name of the plaintiff as soon as the rule permits. Thereafter, the plaintiff has been reminding the defendant off and on with respect to the entry in the record of the Estate Office, Chandigarh regarding 50% ownership in his favour, but each time the defendant had been putting of the matter on the excuse that rules did not permit the transfer. But, later on the plaintiff came to know that the said embargo was for initial few years, which was over. Then, the plaintiff immediately demanded from the defendant regarding the change in the records as per the terms and conditions of the family settlement, but of no avail. Hence the suit.