BALGER SINGH Vs. LAKHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiffs Lakha Singh son of Karnail Singh and Rashpal Singh son of Lakha Singh had brought a suit for declaration against defendants Mohinder Kaur widow, Bakshish Singh son of Gurnam Singh, Balger Singh s/o Sohan Singh, Kewal Singh and Manjit Singh sons of Balger Singh, seeking a declaration that plaintiffs are owners in possession of land measuring 8 kanals situated at village Dhadde, Tehsil and District Amritsar, detailed in the plaint, on the basis of registered sale deed dated 28.11.2003, executed by defendants No. 1 and 2, in their favour alongwith Aar (Khal) i.e. water channel and passage, besides seeking consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to leave the passage for ingress and egress of the plaintiffs for the agricultural land of 8 kanals purchased by the plaintiffs from defendants No.1 and 2 and not to block the passage in any manner. According to the plaintiffs, defendants No. 1 and 2 being owners in possession of the 8 kanals of land out of the joint land measuring 57 kanals 2 marlas being 160/1142 share, situated at village Dhadde, Tehsil and District Amritsar, had sold the same to the plaintiffs vide a registered sale deed dated 28.11.2003; that at the time of execution of the sale deed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs,the possession of land alongwith Khal and passage was also delivered to the plaintiff purchasers; that plaintiffs have been using the passage and khal since then. Defendants No. 1 and 2 were left with no right or interest in the sold land alongwith khal and passage but when defendants No. 1 and 2 sold the passage to defendants No. 3 to 5, they refused to admit the request made by the plaintiffs, hence the suit in question.

(2.) On notice, defendants No. 3 to 5 appeared and filed a written statement contesting the suit raising various preliminary objections, on merits contending that defendants No. 1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 27.6.2006, have sold the entire land falling in their share to the answering defendants for a sum of Rs.1,09,500/- but that did not include any passage. However, in the sale deed executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 5 there is no mention that there is any passage for benefit of the plaintiffs, as such answering respondents are not liable to provide any passage to the plaintiffs. Refuting the remaining allegations, the answering defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-