MUKHBIR SINGH Vs. JIWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit for possession of plot No. 48, situated in Ram Bagh Gate, Amritsar and for future mesne profits from the defendants on the ground that by virtue of agreement to purchase entered into with the Improvement Trust, Amritsar, they were entitled to seek possession, was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) THE material allegations of the plaintiff-appellants are that Kirpal Singh defendant No. 7 entered into an agreement with the Amritsar Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trust') through its Chairman for the purchase of Plot No. 48, situated in Ram Bagh, Amritsar, vide agreement of sale in form 'D' on 12.11.1964 and become intended vendee on the terms and conditions laid down therein and possession was delivered to him. Kirpal Singh further entered into an agreement on 22.12.1964 with Ram Lal and Jagjit Singh and transferred all his rights under the principal agreement dated 12.11.1964 and the latter became intended vendees under the trust which recognised this transfer. Ram Lal further transferred his rights to Smt. Mohinder Kaur, who became the intended vendee. Thereafter Mohinder Kaur and Jagjit Singh plaintiffs transferred their rights under the principal agreement to Mukhbir Singh plaintiff and he became the intended vendee under the Trust which fact it again recognised on payment of the requisite transfer fee. It has accordingly been pleaded that Mukhbir Singh plaintiff stepped into the shoes of Kirpal Singh who entered into the original agreement in form 'D' with the Trust. By way of an amendment it was added that at the time of subsequent transfers made by Kirpal Singh and others, possession was delivered to the subsequent intended vendees. It was also explained that Mohinder Singh son of Jiwan Singh defendant was in possession of a portion of the disputed plot on the basis of a rent note dated 1.9.1965. While vacant possession of the remaining plot was delivered to Mukhbir Singh by Mohinder Kaur and Jagjit Singh, the possession of the said portion under the tenancy of Mohinder Singh was delivered through tenancy rights. Mukhbir Singh plaintiff further entered into an agreement with Amarjit Singh son of Chattar Singh defendant for the sale of this plot on 20.9.1967 which was attested by Jiwan Singh defendant No. 1 and possession of the entire plot was delivered to Amarjit Singh at that time. In respect of the portion under occupation of Mohinder Singh tenant, possession was delivered through tenancy rights. It was further stated that Amarjit Singh defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to purchase the aforesaid plot and he received back his earnest amount of Rs. 800/-. It was further stated that after 31.10.1977 the portion of the plot under occupation of Mohinder Singh was vacated by him and he delivered vacant possession to Mukhbir Singh while Amarjit Singh requested Mukhbir Singh that the portion under his occupation be given on licence to Chattar Singh and Jiwan Singh. Mukhbir Singh accordingly agreed to this proposal and a licence with respect of major portion of this was created in favour of Chattar Singh and Jiwan Singh defendants. According to the plaintiffs, this license was terminated and these defendants became trespassers in the plot in dispute. Alternatively, it was pleaded that if license is not proved, Amarjit Singh defendant took possession of the entire plot under the agreement dated 20.9.1967 and on cancellation of that agreement, he was required to restore back possession to Mukhbir Singh. It was further stated that if the transfer in favour of Mukhbir Singh plaintiff was not recognised by the Court, the other plaintiffs namely Jagnit Singh and Mohinder Kaur were entitled to the possession of the plot in dispute as they were intended vendees. It was further pleaded that the defendants namely Jiwan Singh, Chattar Singh and Avtar Singh filed a suit against the plaintiffs and Kirpal Singh for permanent injunction in which they took up the plea that Jiwan Singh, Chattar Singh and Kirpal Singh defendants were owners of plot No. 48 in equal shares which assertion was wrong. These defendants relied upon some agreement of 1974 which had no value in the eyes of law as it was void and forged document. It was asserted that Kirpal Singh and Mohinder Kaur already having transferred their right, title and interest in the plot in dispute, they could not enter into any such agreement.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by defendant Nos. 1 to 5, who controverted all allegations of the plaintiff-appellants. According to them, Jiwan Singh, Chattar Singh and Kirpal Singh were owners of plot No. 48 in equal shares on which previously there used to be three khokhas in which business was being carried on, bearing No. 1163 to 1165/1 with blue plates No. 1429 and 1430. According to them, Jiwan Singh defendant-respondent No. 1 was in possession of khokha portion No. 1164/1 and 1165/1 and blue plate No. 1430 while Avtar Singh is in possession of khokha portion No. 1163 and blue plate No. 1429. On 29.11.1976 Jiwan Singh defendant entered into partnership with Swarn Singh and Balbir Singh, defendants and since then they are in possession Khokha bearing blue plot No. 1430 while the other 'khokha' is in possession of Avtar Singh. According to the plaintiff-appellants, this fact was admitted by Kirpal Singh in the agreement dated 5.2.1974, which was attested by Mohinder Kaur wife of Kirpal Singh. It was explained that initially Kirpal Singh and Jiwan Singh remained in possession of Khokha No. 1430 jointly but Kirpal Singh left the premises about 15 years ago and since then Jiwan Singh remained in possession whereafter he brought Swaran Singh and Balbir Singh in partnership with him. It was denied that Kirpal Singh entered into any agreement with Ram Lal and Jagjit Singh or the latter transfered the same to Mohinder Kaur and Mukhbir Singh plaintiffs. It was asserted that Jiwan Singh and Avtar Singh were in adverse possession for more than 18 years of these khokhas and had become full owners. It was admitted that Mukhbir Singh plaintiff entered into an agreement with Amarjit Singh defendant with respect to this plot on 20.9.1967 but it was asserted that the former had no right, title, or interest in the property and could not convey the same. Amarjit Singh thereupon filed a suit for the refund of the amount paid by him as advance which was refunded by Mukhbir Singh thereby admitting that he had no right, title, or interest in the property and was not capable of transferring any right or title. It was denied that Amarjit Singh was delivered possession at the time of the said agreement. It was further denied that Mohinder Singh ever remained in possession of the property in dispute as a tenant or Chattar Singh, Amarjit Singh and Kirpal Singh were in possession of any portion of the plot. The suit was stated to be bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Some preliminary objections were raised; that the plaintiffs-appellants had no locus standi to file the suit; the suit was time barred and the plaintiffs-appellants were estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the suit. An objection was taken to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. An objection regarding maintainability of the suit in the present form was also taken and that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action.