PUNJAB STATE Vs. HARNEK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge herein is to judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana dated 22.3 1997 vide which suit for possession filed by respondent Harnek Singh son of Jiwan Singh was decreed and the properties subject matter of dispute fully detailed in the heading of the plaint were ordered to be handed over to the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) The brief facts of the case reveal that Harnek Singh son of Jiwan Singh brought a suit for possession of land measuring 1-10-13 pukhta and building constructed marked A and B respectively thereon shown in red in the plan attached with the plaint and bounded as mentioned in the headnote of the plaint situated at village Taraf Piru Bauda, Ludhiana and some other properties in village Taraf Piru Bauda, Mohalla Dera Kalsian, Gill Road, Tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana. i he burden of the plaint was that the land described above was a part of Khasra No. 2820/112 constituting a part of bigger parcel of land measuring 2 Bighas 18 Biswas and 7 Biswansis as per Jamabandi for the year 1941-42 and that father of .Jiwan Singh had purchased two pieces of land from Syed Hamid Ali and Murad Baksh residents of Ludhiana vide two separate registered sale deeds dated 28.8.1942 and 18.8.1942 respectively. Thereafter father of the plaintiff constructed a building, which has been shown in red colour in the plan, on the plots in dispute and started residing in the property as its owner. On the death of his father in 1943-44, the plaintiff inherited his property including the land in dispute and mutation in this regard was also sanctioned in his favour and he remained in its possession till 30.11.1962 on which date he was dispossessed by Suba Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner of Ludhiana. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the land under the cover of two gifts deeds which are said to have been made by Shri Narain Singh alias Sant Kalsianwala predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 3 on 5.11.1961 and 21.4.1973 in favour of Governor of Punjab. The plaintiff challenged these being illegal, void and inoperative.

(3.) The matter was contested only on the ground that father of the plaintiff was only a benamidar and Shri Narain Puri Sant Kalsianwala was the real owner of the same. He had purchased this property ostensibly in the name of the plaintiff and as a matter of fact it is Shri Narain Puri Sant Kalsianwala who was the real owner. On the pleading of the parties the learned trial Judge framed the following issues: