JAGDISH SINGH AND ORS. Vs. SUNITA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/respondent No.1, Sunita brought a suit with respect to the suit land detailed in the plaint for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner-in-possession being a co-parcener of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) to the extent of 1/8th share in the suit estate and is, thus, entitled for exclusive possession of her share by way of partition and further declaration that the release deed bearing No.317 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 on 9/7/2010 is illegal, nonest and non-operative qua the interest of the plaintiff and also for a decree of perpetual injunction qua defendants no.2 and 3 by restraining them from alienating the suit estate by way of sale, mortgage, RSA-1679-2019 2 etc.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details brief facts for consideration of the lis between the parties stands enumerated as under: The plaintiff/respondent no.1 claimed in the plaint that the suit estate was inherited by her father, Jagdish Singh-defendant no.1 from his forefather which was an ancestral property. As such, defendants no.2 to 7 as well as the plaintiff being co-parceners in the Hindu Joint Family acquired the interest by birth in the aforesaid property equal to that of defendant no.1, i.e. 1/8th share in the property. It has also been stated that no partition has been effected by metes and bounds till date but defendants no.1 to 3, who were in collusion with each other for the purpose of depriving the plaintiff from her right, title and interest in the property and for ousting her from peaceful enjoyment and possession of the same, got executed a release deed No.317 dtd. 9/7/2010 by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 in respect of the entire suit land. Thus, a declaration has been sought that said released deed is null and void and does not confer any right, title and interest with respect to the property in dispute upon defendants no.2 and 3. The defendants no.2 and 3, after execution of the aforesaid release deed, are planning to alienate the property in dispute with the sole purpose of ousting the plaintiff. The defendants no.1 to 4 appeared and contested the suit by filing their joint written statement refuting the claim of the plaintiff that the property was inherited by Jagdish Singh (defendant no.1) from his forefather and, as such, defendants no.2 to 7 being co-parceners and the RSA-1679-2019 3 members of the Hindu Joint Family, have acquired interest in the suit property equivalent to defendant no.1. The claim of the plaintiff that she is in possession and peaceful enjoyment of the suit property, has also been refuted as it is contended that the plaintiff is not residing at Village Banihari, rather after her marriage, she is residing at a different place in her in-laws house. It has further been averred that the release deed with respect to the entire property was executed in accordance with law and is a genuine document and being a title holder of the land in dispute, after the release deed, they have every right to alienate the property by way of sale, mortgage, lease, etc. Issue of limitation was also raised in the written statement. The proforma respondents no.2 and 3, i.e., defendants no.6 and 7, did not appear to contest the suit of the plaintiff as such trial Court proceeded ex parte against them.

(3.) On the basis of rival pleadings, the trial Court framed following issues: