LABH SINGH Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Amarjit Kaur @ Amar Kaur wife of Sh. Chhajju Singh and daughter of Sh. Chuhar Singh son of Sh. Kishan Singh as well as her sister Ms. Jagrup Kaur wife of Sh. Kishori Lal had brought a suit against their three brothers i.e. S/Sh. Gurdial Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Labh Singh, all sons of Chuhar Singh, in which they impleaded their third sister Gurdial Kaur wife of Ranjit Singh daughter of Chuhar Singh as a proforma defendant, seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs along with proforma defendant No. 4 are owners in joint possession to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit land and the house, subject matter of the suit detailed in head-note of the plaint. As per their version, the suit property was previously owned by Sh. Chuhar Singh son of Sh. Kishan Singh, resident of village Ghagga, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, who was father of the parties; that Sh. Chuhar Singh had died on 7/8/1988, however mutation regarding his estate was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants equally but thereafter defendants No. 1 to 3 started claiming themselves to be sole owners of the suit property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiffs had brought the suit in question.

(2.) On being put to notice, defendants No. 1 to 3 had appeared, whereas defendant No. 4 did not appear despite service, as such she was proceeded against ex-parte. The defendants No. 1 and 2 had initially appeared through counsel but subsequently they neither filed any written statement nor there was any representation on their behalf, as such, they were also proceeded against ex parte. The suit was contested by defendant No. 3 only, who in the written statement filed by him, submitted that mutation entered and sanctioned was result of fraud and the same was illegal; that the land in suit was ancestral coparcenary property; that defendants No. 1 to 3 had spent huge amounts on the marriages of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 and it was settled that nothing would be paid to them out of ancestral property. The answering defendant raised legal objections that the suit was not maintainable in the present form; that the suit was false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiffs; that the suit had been filed just to harass the defendant and was liable to be dismissed with special costs.

(3.) The plaintiffs had filed replication controverting the allegations in the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 3 whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint.