DHARAM SINGH Vs. SADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiffs, namely, Dharam Singh, Harjinderjit Singh (sons), Satwant Kaur (widow), Surinder Kaur (daughter of Pritam Singh son of Sadhu Singh), residents of village Jia Sahota Kalan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur (Punjab), filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 8 are the joint owners of land measuring 62 kanals 15 Marias situated at village Sheikhupur Khurd, District Hoshiarpur, one-third share of 130 Kanals 18 Marias agricultural land situated at village Jia Sahota Kalan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, along with 8 Marias besides 21 1/2 Marias of the land along with other joint and common constructed holdings inter alia land covered by sale deed executed by Harbans Singh son of Moola Singh, in favour of defendant No. 1 and residential buildings thereon and that the sale deeds dated 29-9-1980 (Ex. D2) and 27-2-1981 (Ex. D3) executed by defendant No. 1 Sadhu Singh in favour of defendant No. 2 Jarnail Singh (his son) are illegal, collusive, without consideration, void, inoperative and ineffective as against the interests of defendants Nos. 2 to 8. The plaintiffs also prayed for consequential relief by way of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from selling, mortgaging, alienating or otherwise disposing of any part of the agricultural land mentioned in the head note of the plaint and that defendant No. 2 Jarnail Singh be restrained from alienating in any manner the land allegedly acquired by him on the basis of sale deeds (Exhibits D2 and D3 ). The plaintiffs also claimed possession of the agricultural land, which was in the exclusive possession of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as the said land is allegedly jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants, being the property of the Joint Hindu Family.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the case of the. parties it will be necessary for me to reproduce the pedigree table as under:-

(3.) THE plaintiffs filed replication to the written statements filed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and reiterated their allegations made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement. From the above pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed the following issues:-