MANOJ KUMAR Vs. PYARE LAL SANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby the appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff Manoj Kumar against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kalka, has been dismissed.

(2.) Appellant-Plaintiff has brought the suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 03.11.2006 executed by defendant no.1 (deceased-respondent no.1- Pyare Lal Sanga) in favour of respondentsdefendants no.2 and 3 in respect of the house marked 'ABCD' in the site plan attached with the plaint situated on the land bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 69/70, Khasra No. 612/43 measuring (0-3) Marlas situated in Private colony, Surajpur is illegal, null and void, without consideration and is not a genuine document in the eyes of law and the same is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside/cancelled as the plaintiff along with other coparceners are in joint possession of the aforesaid house. Appellant-plaintiff has also sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants no.2 and 3 from alienating the house in dispute in any manner and dispossessing the plaintiff there from.

(3.) As per the averments in the plaint, plaintiff along with his three brothers, father and mother constituted a Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law. The suit property was purchased in the name of defendant no.1 from the common family funds as defendant no.1 was acting as a Karta of the family. The relations of defendant no.1 and his wife namely Krishna Devi got strained and they started residing separately in the same house in different portions. Plaintiff and his family members are in possession of the suit property over the portion shown by letters 'ACEF' in the site plan attached with the plaint. Defendant no.1 has illegally sold the suit property to defendants no.2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 03.11.2006. The said sale deed has been executed by defendant no.1 without any legal necessity and without seeking the prior permission of other coparceners having a birth right over the suit property. The suit property was ancestral in the hands of defendant no.1 and he has no right to alienate the same in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 without having any legal necessity. Hence the suit.