BISHAN SINGH Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan dated 17th September, 1993.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy, the admitted facts may be noticed thus : Ved Parkash, Randeep Singh plaintiffs, Pradeep Singh and Rajinder (minors) defendants No.2 and 3 are sons of Bishan Singh defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs Ved Prakash and Randeep Singh were bom from Vidya Devi first wife of defendant No. 1 Bishan Singh. Pradeep Singh, defendant No. 2 was born from Smt. Shakuntla and Rajinder, defendant No. 3 from Smt. Rupo. The land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 15/29 and 16/30 measuring 2-12 bighas and 152-13 bighas situate in Mauza Banona Hedbast No. 165, Pargana Giriwar, Tehsil Pachhad of District Sirmaur (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') was recorded in the ownership of Bishan Singh, defendant No. 1 and Kanso Devi his mother. Bishan Singh gifted half of his share in the suit land to his minor sons Pradeep Singh and Rajinder by a registered Gift deed dated 22nd October, 1983 (Ex. PW-l/C). Plaintiffs Ved Prakash and Randeep Singh filed a Civil Suit before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur District Nahan, on the grounds that defendant Bishan Singh and the plaintiffs are the members of joint undivided Hindu Family and the suit land is ancestral of defendant No. 1 and plaintiffs, as the defendant No. 1 inherited the same from common ancestors i.e. grand-father of plaintiffs and father of defendant No. 1. The Gift, it is pleaded, has been made to deprive the plaintiffs of their legitimate rights in the suit land. The Gift deed, according to the plaintiffs, is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Plaintiffs pray for a declaration that the Gift made by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 by a registered Gift deed dated 22nd October, 1983 (Ex. PW-1/C) is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs with a consequential relief of joint possession of the suit land with defendant No.1. In the alternative, it is prayed that the defendants No. I to 3 may be restrained from creating any charge or alienation on the suit property.

(3.) The defendants resist the suit. The allegations are controverted. It is denied that the suit land is ancestral property of defendant No. 1 and plaintiffs. The case of the defendants is that defendant No. 1 Bishan Singh acquired 1/2 share of Smt. Kanka in this land and Smt. Kanka is also one of the co-sharer in the land in dispute and, therefore, the Land under Gift cannot be said to be ancestral. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the Gift and the suit is not maintainable by them.