NAZAR SINGH Vs. SAUDAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff - Nazar Singh son of Mangal Singh, a resident of village Chohla, Tehsil Zira had brought a suit against his two brothers, namely, Saudagar Singh and Chaman Singh, two sons of Saudagar Singh, namely, Bahal Singh and Tota Singh, three sons of Chaman Singh, namely, Gurbax Singh and Jaswant Singh and Surjit Singh and one Gurdit Singh son of Chanda Singh, on the assertions that plaintiff along with his brothers Saudagar Singh and Chaman Singh and their father Mangal Singh constituted a Hindu undivided family governed by Mitakshara Branch of Hindu Law in/and the matters of alienation and succession; that the suit land situated at village Chohla mentioned in headnote 'A' of the plaint happened to be ancestral coparcenary property of Mangal Singh qua his sons, since it was inherited by Mangal Singh from his father in succession, whereas the part of suit property situated at village Bahawalpur was purchased by Mangal Singh with the earnings of his sons i.e. plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 and from income of land of village Chohla; the entire land was standing in the name of Mangal Singh though Mangal Singh along with his sons plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 had equal shares therein; Mangal Singh happened to be Karta of the joint Hindu family; he could not alienate the suit property without legal necessity or for benefit of estate; since he intended to do so, his son Chaman Singh defendant in this suit filed a suit against Mangal Singh and his sons Saudagar Singh and Nazar Singh (plaintiff) for permanent injunction restraining Mangal Singh from alienating the coparcenary property without legal necessity and benefit of family; in that suit Mangal Singh (since dead) and defendants No.1 and 2 admitted that Mangal Singh could not sell or alienate the property without legal necessity; that suit was decreed on 12.2.1982 by the Court of the then Sub-Judge, Zira; in the said suit Mangal Singh had admitted that the property in his name was joint Hindu family property and land at village Bahawalpur was purchased by him with the earnings of his sons and from income of land in village Chohla.

(2.) The plaintiff further averred that despite that decree against him Mangal Singh, sold land measuring 10 kanals comprised in khasra Nos.16//6(8-0) 15 min(2-0) situated at village Bahawalpur to defendants in/and No.3 and 4 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 26.12.1985; on the same day, he had sold land measuring 10 kanals comprised in khasra Nos.13//16 min (4-18) 17/1(5-2) situated at village Chohla to defendants No.5 and 7 for for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-; those sale deeds were made without consideration and legal necessity, as such are illegal, null and void, ineffective qua rights of the plaintiff; the sale deeds were result of fraud inasmuch as Mangal Singh was aged about 100 years and he was not having proper understanding; he had remained bedridden for the last three years prior to his death; Mangal Singh used to sign in Gurumukhi and he did not thumb mark any document; the market price of the land was not less than Rs.50,000/- per acre at that time.

(3.) The plaintiff further alleged in the plaint that defendants No.5 to 7 had exchanged land with Mangal Singh getting 56 kanals 5 marlas of land at village Chohla and in lieu of that giving 56 kanals 10 marlas of land at village Bahawalpur; mutations were sanctioned in that regard on 22.10.1984; the plaintiff challenged that exchange as illegal, null and void, ineffective qua his rights contending that he was co-sharer to the extent of 1/3 share in the land at village Bahawalpur and was in cultivating possession of land measuring 41 kanals 3 marlas there; defendants No.5 to 7 had no right to exchange that land, which was in possession of plaintiff; that defendants No.2 and 8 had also exchanged land measuring 8 kanals 8 marlas of village Chohla with the land measuring 6 kanals 1 marla of village Bahawalpur; that exchange according to the plaintiff was also illegal, null and void because Mangal Singh had no right to do so without the consent of other coparceners; that in/and plaintiff is a co-sharer to the extent of 1/3 share. The plaintiff further averred that after exchange Mangal Singh sold the land received by him in exchange to defendants No.3 and 4 vide sale deed dated 26.12.1986 for Rs.49,000/-; the sale deed according to the plaintiff is also illegal, null and void and not binding upon him since Mangal Singh had no right to sell the specific khasra numbers, which were not in his possession and the plaintiff being his legal representative/heir is entitled to challenge the alienations made by Mangal Singh. As per the version of the plaintiff on refusal of the defendants to concede his claim, he had knocked at the door of the Court for redressal of his grievances by way of filing a civil suit.