UPJINDER KAUR Vs. KUNDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in Second Appeal. It is alleged in the plaint that she was married to one Ashwin Spencer son of Earnest Edwin Spencer r/o Vancouver, U.S.A. at Church of North India, Ferozepur Cantt. on 27.6.1995. At the time of marriage, her husband was residing at Prem Nagar, Ferozepur Cantt. Their marriage was registered in the records maintained by the Registrar of Marriages, Abohar on 20.7.1995. She lived with her husband in the residential house in question after her marriage. Her husband left for U.S.A. with the assurance that he would call her there after arranging her Visa. She was working as Staff Nurse in Govt. Hospital at Abohar, she got herself transferred to the Civil Hospital Ferozepur City, in August 1997 and started residing in the house in question. It is alleged that she has her ration card with defendant No. 3 (Grand-mother of her husband) in the house in question since November 1997. She had also been paying elecricity bills of the electric connection installed in the said house. The plaintiff's husband did not arrange Visa for her and she has been residing in the house in question since August 1997. It is further alleged that defendant No. 2, who happens to be the maternal aunt of Ashwin Spencer (husband), procured the power of attorney of Adwin Spencer and sold the house in question by registered sale deed dated 24.6.1999 to respondent No. 1. The plaintiff has thus challenged the said sale deed. It is alleged that after the sale deed, defendant No. 3 demanded Rs. 2 lacs from the plaintiff showed her inability to fulfill the demand, defendants started giving her threats which led to the filing of the present suit challenging the aforesaid sale deed dated 24.6.1999. Along with the suit for declaration, the plaintiff had prayed for injunction too.

(2.) AFTER entering appearance, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit, who had admitted that plaintiff was married with Ashwin Spencer and had been residing in a portion of the house in question as permissive user. It is also alleged that they had purchased the property against the valuable consideration.

(3.) THE burden to prove both the issues was upon the plaintiff.