PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.13709-C of 2018 This is an application for making good the deficiency in Court fee. It is submitted that deficiency in the Court fee has since been made good. Extension in time to deposit the same is afforded till the deposit. Application is accordingly disposed of.

(2.) RSA No.5021 of 2018(O&M) Appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved of the judgments and decrees dtd. 31/1/2017 and 25/5/2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), RSA No.5021 of 2018(O&M) [2] Ludhiana and the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, respectively. Appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that,

(3.) As per the facts pleaded in the plaint, it was stated that the plaintiff/ appellant and defendant No.2 - Darshan Singh are husband and wife, but due to a strained relationship between them, they started residing separately. Appellant/plaintiff claimed to be in actual physical possession of the property in question alongwith other property in her name. Land in dispute which earlier belonged to the plaintiff's husband Darshan Singh was sold by Darshan Singh to Teg Ditar Singh vide sale-deed dtd. 23/10/2002 without any legal necessity. The plaintiff however repurchased the said property from Teg Ditar Singh by giving him the sale-consideration which he had paid to Darshan Singh at the time of execution of the abovesaid sale-deed dtd. 23/10/2002. The suit property was thus repurchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale-deed dtd. 22/9/2003. Plaintiff/appellant later came to know from the village Nambardar that sale-deed dtd. 21/6/2006 had been executed by defendant No.2 - Darshan Singh in favour of defendant No.1 - Avtar Singh on the basis of an exparte decree dtd. 14/8/2004 passed on the strength of agreement dtd. 13/7/2001, which was alleged to be a procured and fabricated document only with a view to deprive the plaintiff of the suit property. It was further alleged that defendant No.1-Avtar Singh in connivance with defendant No.2-Darshan Singh obtained the impugned exparte decree by connivance and misrepresentation. Defendant No.2, it is stated, has no right to execute agreement to sell as he had already alienated the suit land in favour of Teg Ditar Singh vide sale-deed dtd. 29/5/2001. When RSA No.5021 of 2018(O&M) [4] the right of the plaintiff over the suit land was not accepted, the present suit was filed.