SHASHI KANT Vs. AMARJIT DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM-11723-C-2017 Heard.

(2.) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and legal heirs of respondent No.13 - Kulwant Singh as mentioned in para No.2 of the application are brought on record for the purpose of this appeal only. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Shashi Kant son of Jagirdar Dutta had brought a suit against his brother Amarjit Dutta, married sisters - Smt.Parveen Bali, Smt.Ramesh Vaid, Smt.Sumati and others seeking a declaration that he is owner in possession of land measuring 146 kanals 18 marlas fully described in head-note of the plaint situated at village Chak Alia, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and the entries on the basis of mutation No.1394 regarding estate of Smt.Parkash Devi widow of Sh.Jagirdar Dutta are erroneous, illegal, null and void, consequently sale deed dated 26.3.1999 in respect of land measuring 16 kanals in favour of Harbhajan Singh etc. defendants No.8 to 12 and sale deed dated 26.3.1999 regarding the land measuring 8 kanals 17 marlas in favour of defendant No.13 executed by Amarjit Dutta defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void and so are the revenue entries based on those sale deeds in favour of defendants No.8 to 13.

(3.) As per the version of the plaintiff, Jagirdar son of Ram Chand was the original owner of the suit land; he had executed a valid Will dated 28.7.1985 in favour of his wife Parkash Devi with a rider that after death of Parkash Devi, the properties in her hands would go to his son Shashi Kant; Jagirdar had died on 4.8.1985 and mutation No.1214 on the basis of Will was sanctioned in favour of Parkash Devi; Parkash Devi had died on 21.3.1991 and as per the Will executed by Jagirdar, after death of Parkash Devi, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property; defendants No.1 to 7 have no right, title or interest in the suit property but they in collusion with the revenue staff got sanctioned the mutation of inheritance in their favour. According to the plaintiff that mutation is wrong and is not binding upon him; that defendants No.8 to 12 claimed that they had purchased land measuring 16 kanals vide sale deed dated 26.3.1999; defendant No.13 claimed that the sale deed dated 26.3.1999 regarding 8 kanals 17 marlas. According to the plaintiff those sale deeds are unlawful, void, not operative against the rights of the plaintiff; on the basis of those sale deeds, the defendants started threatening the plaintiff to take possession of the suit land from him, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit.