ANNU Vs. BALWAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction to enforce right in the joint family property and possession.

(2.) A civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff Annu daughter of late Sh. Krishan Kumar son of Ram Singh @ Hawa Singh, minor through guardian mother Smt. Bimla Devi daughter of Jodha Ram, resident of village Rajokri, New Delhi against Balwan Singh son of Ram Singh @ Hawa Singh son of Jhagra son of Cheta, resident of village Masit, Tehsil and District Rewari. Ram Singh @ Hawa Singh was impleaded as proforma defendant.

(3.) Plaintiff claimed that the parties are Hindu by religion. Plaintiff and defendants constituted a joint Hindu family. As per Hindu Mitakshra School, the child is entitled to share in parental coparcenary property. She claimed herself to be coparcener in joint Hindu family property as mentioned in the plaint and her share came out to be 1/4th according to survivorship from the birth. Plaintiff took birth on 01.09.1993 from the loin of Krishan Kumar and Bimla Devi in village Masit. Father of the plaintiff namely Krishan Kumar died in November 1994. Plaintiff lives in her maternal house with her maternal grand-mother Lal Kaur in village Rajokri, New Delhi. Defendant No.2 Ram Singh @ Hawa Singh is grand-father of the plaintiff and is karta/manager of joint Hindu family property. Defendant No.1 in connivance with defendant No.2 in order to grab the share of the plaintiff, got release deed dated 26.02.2002 executed from defendant No.2 and mutation No.670 dated 16.05.2002 was also got sanctioned in connivance with officials of the revenue department. Release deed and mutation got executed by defendant No.1 were in respect of ancestral joint Hindu family property, in which plaintiff has a right and share by birth, therefore, the release deed was claimed to be illegal and not binding upon the right of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 illegally took possession of the 1/4th share of the plaintiff and thereafter intended to alienate the same by giving threats to the plaintiff. Some part of the land had already been sold by defendant No.1 on 25.09.2006 in an illegal manner.