SHINDER PAL SINGH Vs. KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 18. 9. 2001 and 10. 11. 2003 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kapurthala (referred to hereinafter as 'the trial Court') and the Additional District judge, Kapurthala (hereinafter described as 'the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants and pro forma respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the present appellants and pro forma respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had filed a suit for declaration against defendants-respondent nos. 1 and 2. It was pleaded that appellant no. 1 and his brother-Gurcharan Singh, father of appellant No. 2 and pro forma respondent Nos. 3 to 5 purchased the suit land from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 4. 2. 1982 for a total consideration of Rs. 4000/ -. It was further pleaded that a sale deed was executed and got registered on the very same day and they were in possession of the suit property ever since and have constructed house thereon in which they were residing. Mutation No. 1212 regarding the suit property was stated to have been entered in the revenue records, but when the appellants and pro forma respondent Nos. 3 to 5 approached the Halqa Patwari to get a copy of jamabandi for obtaining some loan, then they came to know that mutation No. 1212 relating to the suit property was not sanctioned in their favour. They requested the revenue officials to get mutated the property in their favour, but they refused to do so. They, therefore, filed the instant suit for declaration that they were owner in possession of the land measuring 19 marlas as detailed in the headnote of the plaint.

(3.) UPON notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and contested the suit and pleaded that they along with Resham Singh son of banta Singh, Amar Kaur widow of Sital singh, Jasvir Singh, Hira Singh and Smt. Seebo widow of Santa Singh were in possession of the suit property as owners. They further pleaded that other co-sharers of the suit property had not been impleaded as party to the suit and, therefore, it was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further pleaded that they never sold the suit property in favour of appellant No. 1 and his brother-Gurcharan Singh and that the sale deed dated 4. 2. 1982 was never executed by them. Fraud and forgery were also pleaded qua the sale deed