DASONDHA SINGH Vs. ZALAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I dispose of two Regular Second Appeals bearing No. 2645 of 1982 titled 'jhujar Singh and Anr. v. Dasonda Singh and Ors. ' and R. S. A. No. 2644 of 1982 titled 'dasondha Singh and ors. v. Zalam Singh and Ors. ' as both the appeals have arisen from the judgment and decree dated 8. 9. 1982 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sangrur, who partly allowed the appeal of the defendants and the judgment and decree dated. 13. 5. 1981 passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Dhuri was modified in the way that instead of a decree for possession of 3/5th share only out of the land in dispute was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants No. 1 to 8. The suit with regard to the remaining 2/5th share of the suit land was, however, dismissed. In the present two appeals, the plaintiffs want that the entire suit should be decreed as decreed by the trial Court and the defendants have prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs should be dismissed in toto.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Saun Singh father of Dasondha Singh, Jangir Singh and Mukhtiar Singh plaintiffs was the owner of the land comprising in Khasra Nos. 2024, 2043, 2029, 2411 and 1866. He sold land measuring 4 Bighas 15 Biswas comprised in khasra No. 2024 to Gurnam Singh for a consideration of Rs. 210/-; land measuring 14 Bighas 17 Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 2043 and 2029 for a sum of Rs. 824/- and land measuring 11 Bighas 11 Biswas comprised in Khasra Rs. 2411 for a sum of Rs. 90/- to the above said Gurnam Singh and the land measuring 3 Bighas 2 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 1886 to Parsin Kaur wife of Gurnam Singh. All these transactions were made through various sale deeds. Both Gurnam Singh and Parsin Kaur have died and defendants No. 1 to 8 namely Zalam Singh, Jhujar Singh , Surjit Kaur, Gobinder Singh, Gurmit Singh, Raghbir Singh, Gurmail Kaur and Mukhtiar Kaur are the legal representatives of Gurnam Singh and Parsin Kaur. According to the plaintiffs, the land in suit was allotted in lieu of the above said khasra numbers sold by Saun Singh to Gurnam Singh Parsin Kaur. The plaintiffs also filed a suit for declaration alleging that the sales made by Saun Singh in favour of Gurnam Singh and his wife Parsin Kaur were without consideration and legal necessity and these sale deeds are void and do not affect the rights of the plaintiffs. That suit was decreed on 25. 3. 2000 B. K. with the directions that the plaintiffs would be entitled to the possession of the land by paying Rs. 210/- after the death of Saun Singh. The plaintiffs are thus entitled to the possession of the land by paying Rs. 210/ -. Gurnam Singh and Parsin Kaur filed an appeal against the judgment dated 25. 3. 2000 B. K. and the said appeal was also dismissed on 22. 12. 2000 B. K.

(3.) THE suit was contested by defendants No. 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 who filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit of the plaintiffs was not maintainable as the plaintiffs have filed the suit on the basis of the order of Asstt. Collector Malerkotla dated 16. 2. 1978; that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, the stand of these defendants are that Saun Singh was the owner of the property in dispute. He sold it in favour of Gurnam Singh and Parsin Kaur. After the death of these two persons, defendants No. 1 to 8 have succeeded their interest. Defendants denied that the suit land was allotted in lieu of the land sold by Saun Singh to Gurnam Singh Parsin Kaur. The defendants, however, admit that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sales effected by Saun Singh were without consideration and legal necessity. The defendants also admit that Saun Singh had died but his date of death has been disputed. Defendants have also denied the execution of the will by Saun Singh in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants also took a stand that Gurdial Kaur and Sant Kaur have not been joined as plaintiffs in the suit, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Separate written statements were also filed by defendants No. 5 and 6 and their stand was common with that of his co-defendants.