PRITAM KAUR Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs-Appellants are in the Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below.

(2.) Basically, plaintiffs have challenged the sale made by their father Babu Singh on the ground that the property is joint hindu family ancestral coparcenary property and, therefore, sale made by him, being without legal necessity, is illegal. It may be noted that this Regular Second Appeal was initially partly allowed to the extent of 1/9th share of the property sold. However, the judgment has been reversed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3379 of 2003 decided on 18/1/2013 while remitting the case back to this Court to re-decide the same in accordance with Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Undisputed facts are that Diwan Singh, common ancestor of the plaintiffs as well as defendant Nos.1, was owner of land measuring 87 bighas. He had three sons namely Jaimal Singh, Nihal Singh and Amar Singh. So, each one of them, after the demise of late Sh. Diwan Singh, inherited 1/3rd share in the property i.e. 29 bighas of land each. Jaimal Singh had one son namely Gurmukh Singh, whereas Nihal Singh left behind widow Smt. Sarbi whereas Amar Singh had two sons namely Babu Singh and Rachna. After the death of Nihal Singh, property was inherited by Sarbi whereas after the death of Rachna, property was inherited by Assi, his daughter. However, when Assi got married her property was mutated in favour of Babu Singh. Thus, Babu Singh became owner of land measuring 29 bighas. Sarbi also died and his property was inherited by Gurmukh Singh and Babu Singh in equal shares. Thus, Babu Singh became owner of land measuring 43 bighas and 10 biswas. Babu Singh had four sons namely Joga Singh, Darbara Singh, Ranjit Singh and Surjit Singh. Learned First Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs separated from the family in the year 1976-77 and started residing at Village Bhankarpur with their aunt (mother's sister). Thus, on the day the suit was filed there is no evidence that the family was joint hindu family.