JEET SINGH Vs. KANWALJEET KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the defendant against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below; granting against him the declaration and a decree for joint possession in favour of the plaintiffs qua the property mentioned in the plaint; by declaring the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.04.2006 and the subsequent revenue entries as illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The facts as pleaded by the plaintiffs are that plaintiff No. 1 is the widow of Malkiat Singh and plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are the daughters. It was pleaded that Malkiat Singh had become the owner in joint possession of the land measuring 133/878 share out of the land mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint; as per the jamabandi of the year 1988-1989. After the death of Malkiat Singh the said share was inherited by the plaintiffs in equal share and mutation No. 2179 was entered to that effect in the revenue records. It was further claimed by the plaintiffs that after the death of Malkiat Singh plaintiff No. 1 was shunted out from her house alongwith her two minor daughters by the defendant and his wife; illegaly and after giving them Beating. It was further pleaded that by taking undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs, the defendant fraudulently got suffered in his favour the impugned decree of 169/878 share out of the suit land; in civil suit No. 19/96 decided on 25.04.1996 titled as Jeet Singh v. Kanwaljit Kaur. The plaintiffs have challenged the said decree. It was further alleged that after the said decree, in collusion with the revenue officials, the defendant got mutation No. 2316 entered in his favour and that the defendant, thereafter, started threatening to alienate the share of the plaintiffs in the suit land; on the basis of the above said decree and the subsequent revenue records. Therefore, the declaration of the joint possession and injunction against the defendant was prayed for by the plaintiffs.

(3.) On notice, the defendant had appeared and filed a written statement submitting that the decree passed in his favour was legal and valid.