BALBIR SINGH Vs. BANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by Balbir Singh and his wife Joginder Kaur and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 4th November, 1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 8th December, 1983 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Bassi Pathanan, then part of District Patiala and now in District Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiff Bant Singh, resident of Sirhind City, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the collusive decree dated 19.10.1981 passed in Civil Suit No. 346 of 24.9.1981, Balbir Singh and Joginder Kaur v. Chet Singh is null void and is liable to be set aside regarding the agricultural land and the house mentioned in head note of the plaint of the suit, with a prayer that defendants Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Balbir Singh and wife Joginder Kaur be restrained from alienating or transferring the suit land as well as the house in question in any manner. Prem Kaur (widow of Chet Singh), Harbans Kaur, Angrez Kaur and Tej Kaur (daughters of Chet Singh) and Harbans Singh (son of Chet Singh) were added as defendants Nos. 3 to 7, respectively. The case set up by the plaintiff was that he and the defendants were the members of the Joint Hindu Family. The suit property was ancestral. The plaintiff previously filed a suit for joint possession of the land mentioned at letter 'B' in the head note against Chet Singh, in which Chet Singh was restrained from alienating the suit property and the case was finally decided on 25th February, 1982. Later on Chet Singh, father of the plaintiff, transferred the suit property in the names of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Balbir Singh and his wife Joginder Kaur through a collusive decree without any right and thereby the plaintiff has been devoid of his share. The notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Joint written statement was filed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in which they pleaded that the suit property is not the ancestral property and that the defendants are Jats and are governed by the Customary Law of Punjab. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were given the suit property through an oral family settlement and by a decree of the Civil Court. The said decree is legal and valid. The plaintiff was separated by Chet Singh deceased, who had every right to give the land to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in an oral family settlement and that the plaintiff had no interests in the suit property. The mutation has also been effected on the basis of the decree in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in a right manner and that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form. Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 filed separate written statements and they took the stand that the suit property is ancestral, which was in the name of Chet Singh and now the same has been mutated in the names of the parties. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the contesting defendants, in which he reiterated his allegations made in the plaint by denying those of the written statements and from the above pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.