PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. RENU KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been made in this appeal to the judgment and decree dtd. 15/5/2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala in Civil Appeal/CSI No. 572/2016/126/27/9/2016 by virtue of which he has dismissed the appeal and has affirmed the judgment and decree dtd. 8/9/2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha. The trial Court, by aforesaid judgment and decree, has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent Renu Kumari.

(2.) Brief facts of this case which would be necessary for consideration of the lis, stand enumerated as under: The plaintiff-respondent Renu Kumari filed a suit seeking declaration that she is exclusive owner in possession of the residential house measuring 51 Sq. Yards fully described at the foot of the plaint and also for direction to the defendant No. 2 to enter her name in the municipal record in accordance with the registered Will dtd. 11/10/1989 executed by Hans Raj (since deceased) her father, in her favour. It appears that the suit was initially filed impleading the general public as well as Municipal Committee, Nabha, through its Executing Officer only. However, subsequently, petition was filed by the defendant/appellant Pardeep Kumar under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as a party which was allowed. He filed written statement taking a stand that the deceased-Hans Raj was residing with him and he is owner in possession in the suit property in view of the family settlement made earlier under which the same was allotted in his favour. Let it also be noted that on notice having been issued to the defendants No. 1 and 2, none had appeared and subsequently, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn so far as against respondent No. 2 i.e. Municipal Committee is concerned.

(3.) The relationship between the parties is admitted as they are sister and brother. It is also admitted that the plaintiffs matrimonial house is at Rajpura. As per the defendant-appellant, she is residing there permanently and not in the suit property. The defendant-appellant also claimed in the written statement that Hans Raj used to reside with the defendant in the suit house and had never executed any Will in favour of the plaintiff and as such, the Will is false, forged and fabricated document prepared by the plaintiff for the purpose of grabbing the suit property of the defendant. Further case of the defendant-appellant is that he is in possession of the suit property as owner qua the oral family settlement made earlier which stands proved in the civil suit titled as Pardeep Walia v. Rajat Walia etc. and the plaintiff has concealed the aforesaid facts. Other technical issues regarding maintainability of suit and lack of any cause of action or locus standi etc. were also taken.