HARKANWAL SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant - plaintiff is aggrieved of judgment and decree dtd. 22/12/2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya whereby the suit for declaration filed by him was dismissed as well as judgment and decree dtd. 1/8/2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby his appeal was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the appellant - plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that land, as detailed in the plaint, is the coparcenary property of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 and that the plaintiff is a coparcener in possession of the same besides two transfer deeds dtd. 2/7/2010 executed by his father Surjit Singh - defendant No. 1 in favour of Palwinder Pal Singh (plaintiffs brother) being illegal, sham transactions without necessity and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff. Consequent relief of permanent injunction is also sought. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs grandfather namely Arvail Singh owned a big chunk of land in West Pakistan, which was ancestral property in his hands. After partition of the country, the plaintiffs ancestors migrated to India. The suit property besides other property was allotted in lieu of the land left by Arvail Singh in Pakistan. Grandfather of the plaintiff - Gur Amar Singh is stated to have succeeded to his father's estate by way of natural succession and after the death of Gur Amar Singh, Surjit Singh, father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 inherited the suit property. It is further stated that Surjit Singh had received the property in his capacity as Karta of the coparcenary family when the plaintiff was born and the plaintiff alongwith his father and grandfather constituted a Joint Hindu coparcenary. Therefore, the plaintiff had a share in the suit property held by Surjit Singh by virtue of being a member of the coparcenary. It is alleged that two transfer deeds dtd. 2/7/2010 were managed by defendant No. 2 (real brother of the plaintiff) from defendant No. 1 in a clandestine manner. The transfer is claimed to be without any legal necessity, therefore, ineffective qua the plaintiff as the suit property is ancestral coparcenary property. Defendant No. 2 threatened to take possession of the suit property. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) The suit was contested with the assertions that estate of Gur Amar Singh devolved upon the plaintiff and Surjit Singh - defendant No. 1 in equal shares on the basis of a registered will dtd. 2/6/2010 executed by Gur Amar Singh. The plaintiff even transferred/sold a part of the property, which he had inherited from Gur Amar Singh. In case, the suit property is claimed to be ancestral, the plaintiff too has no right to the suit property, which fell to him on the basis of the will of Gur Amar Singh. It is denied on merits that Arvail Singh was a big land owner in West Pakistan orthat he migrated to India and property in lieu thereof was allotted to him. It is denied that Surjit Singh - defendant No. 1, father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 inherited the property as Karta of the coparcenary family. The transfer deed is claimed to be a valid and legal document executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 in lieu of services rendered by him, besides love and affection for him. Defendant No. 2 had earlier executed a valid Will dtd. 2/6/2010 in favour of defendant No. 2 in his sound disposing mind. The transfer deeds were executed by way of abundant caution. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.