JOG RAJ RANA Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant - plaintiff is aggrieved of judgment and decree dtd. 28/7/2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara as well as judgment and decree dtd. 26/2/2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the appellant - plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the sole and exclusive owner in possession of the house as detailed in the plaint. Further, suit for permanent injunction was sought for restraining the defendant from taking forcible possession or illegally interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff or transferring or mortgaging the house in dispute.

(3.) At the outset, it is relevant to note that the plaintiff and the defendant - respondent are real brothers. Property in question i.e. a house is pleaded to be self acquired property of Shama Kaur, mother of the parties. It is further pleaded that Shama Kaur executed a registered disinheritance deed dtd. 4/4/1996 during her life time, disinheriting the defendant Harbans Singh. It is further stated that the disinheritance deed was executed by Shama Kaur in her sound disposing mind, in the presence of Agya Ram, Lambardar and Harish Kumar son of Shanti Saroop. It is mentioned therein that defendant Harbans Singh and her wife Meena were involved in bad company as they insulted and threatened her. She, thus, disinherited the said defendants. Publication in the newspaper was also carried out. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed to be the sole legal heir of Shama Kaur, thus, entitled to the declaration as prayed for. In order to substantiate his plea of exclusive possession, the plaintiff claimed the electricity connection of the house to be in the name of plaintiff and water connection in the name of his wife namely Balwinder Kaur. Despite request, defendant refused to admit the genuine claim of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit Respondent - defendant contested the suit. Various preliminary objections were raised in the written statement. It is denied that the plaintiff is the sole owner in exclusive possession of the suit property. Property is claimed to be joint between the parties. Disinheritance deed dtd. 4/4/1996 is denied and claimed to be a forged and fabricated document. Affidavit dtd. 4/4/1994 was also claimed to be fabricated. Defendant and his wife claimed to have cordial relations with Shama Kaur. Shama Kaur had appointed defendant Harbans Singh as a General Power of Attorney in respect to her property situated in village Raniya, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot vide registered GPA dtd. 30/9/1991 and being the elder son of Shama Kaur, defendant claimed to be discharging his duties towards the family diligently. The property as mentioned in the GPA was mortgaged with one Vijay Kumar. It is the defendant who paid the mortgage amount and got the suit property redeemed. Defendant claimed to be staying in the residential house till 2005. Reliance was placed upon the voter identity card of the defendant and his wife issued on 12/5/1995. However, due to constant bickering and disputes between the family members of the plaintiff and defendant, defendant claimed to have shifted to a rental accommodation at the address mentioned in the head note of the plaint. Mutation of inheritance of late Shama Kaur was duly entered and sanctioned in the name of both the brothers who are the only legal heirs of Shama Kaur. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.