JAGGA RAM Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Rattan Lal had brought a suit against defendants Raj Kumar and Sarwan Kumar both sons of Moti Ram, as well as Jagga Ram son of Chaudhari Ram, seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining such defendants from causing any type of forcible, illegal and unauthorized interference into peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property measuring 6 marlas having dimensions 60' 30' fully described in head note of the plaint. As per version of the plaintiff, he alongwith defendants are recorded to be co-sharers in the suit land detailed in the head note of the plaintiff situated at village Painchawali now Radha Swami Colony within Municipal Limits of Fazilka; that on account of oral family partition effected among the co-sharers, the plaintiff is in peaceful exclusive possession of the suit property measuring 6 marlas having dimensions 60' 30' consisting of five shops and courtyard from the portion of land measuring 8 kanals as co-sharer without any hindrance or interruption from anybody. That exclusive possession of the plaintiff over this piece of land is evident from entries incorporated in the revenue record; that the plaintiff had raised a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the Fazilka Central Co-op Bank Ltd., Grain Market, Fazilka, vide report dated 31.10.1996 recorded at Sr. No. 131 in the revenue record; that plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 are real brothers whereas defendants No. 3 is associate of defendants No. 1 and 2. Although defendants are co-sharers in the land in question, they have no concern or connection either with the exclusive possession of the joint suit property, but even then they constituted an unlawful assembly with an ulterior motive to dispossess the plaintiff illegally and forcibly. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff brought the suit in question.

(2.) On notice, only defendants No. 2 and 3 put in appearance and filed separate written statements, whereas defendant No.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte. In the written statement filed by defendant No.2, he had taken up preliminary objections that the site plan of the disputed property has not been prepared properly; that Smt. Sheela Devi, mother of defendant No.2, one of the co-sharer, has not been impleaded as party and the suit was not maintainable. On merits, the answering defendant denied that he has no concern with the suit land measuring 8 kanals comprised in Rectangle No.84, Khewat No.747, Khatoni No. 972. Refuting the remaining allegations, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) In the written statement filed by respondent No.3 he has taken up preliminary objection that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration of the suit property having purchased 17' x 11' from defendant No.2 and Smt. Sheela Devi, mother of defendant No.2 through a registered sale deed dated 18.1.2005 and since then he is in possession thereof as owner; that he has got one electric motor installed in his name and no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to bring the suit and the suit is not maintainable. On merits, the answering defendant contended that the revenue entries in the name of plaintiff are also wrong; that answering respondent is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration from defendant No.2 and his mother vide registered sale deed. However, relationship between the parties is admitted. It is contended that answering defendant was in exclusive possession of the suit property and plaintiff have no right in the same.