NEW BHARAT CHEMICAL INDUSTRY Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Regular First Appeal against the judgment dated 12. 6. 1978 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana vide which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff had brought a suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 3. 3. 1972 executed by defendants No. 1 to 8 in favour of defendant No. 9 in respect of the land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 134 and Khalauni No. 142 Rect. No. 34, Killa Nos. 3/1, Rect. No. 32. Killas No. 8/2, 13/1 vide Farad Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 situated in Village Sherpur Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The possession of the land was also demanded in the suit. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was a registered partnership firm and Tulsi Dass Jaitwani was its registered partner. He was thus competent to sue. The plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 8 were joint owners in possession of 40 kanals 15 marlas of land comprised in Khewat No. 134, Khatauni No. 1 42, Rect. No. 132 Killa Nos. 8/2, 12/13, 12/1, 18/2, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23/1 Rect No. 34 Killa No. 3/1 and land measuring 18 kanals comprised in khewat No. 454 Khatauni No. 471 Rect No. 32 Killa Nos. 11/2, and 12/1 as per jamabandi for the year 1968-69 situated in village Sherpur Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. This land according to the plaintiff was not yet partitioned. It was averred in the plaint that defendant Nos. 1 to 8 had no right to sell any specific portion of the land to defendant No. 1 nor they were competent to deliver exclusive possession of the same to defendant No. 9. Defendants No. 1 to 8, according to the plaintiff, illegally sold 4 kanals 4 marlas of land described above to defendant No. 9. The sale deed of the above land was ineffective qua the plaintiff and was liable to be set aside. Defendant No. 9 was asked to get the sale deed cancelled and to deliver back the possession but he did not agree; hence the suit was filed.

(2.) THE suit was not resisted by defendants No. 1. to 8. They had filed the written statement in which they admitted the claim of the plaintiff. They admitted that they being co-sharers of the joint land had no right to sell any specific portion. Defendant No. 9 purchased the land at his own.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: