MOHAN SINGH Vs. VIDYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 C. P. C. has been filed by the Appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, vide which he dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the judgment and decree dated 29.6.1996 of the Court of learned Senior Sub-Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the Appellant.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant hereinafter also referred to as the Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction as against the Respondents hereinafter also referred to as Defendants No, 1 and 2. It was alleged that the plot bearing No. MIG-20 measuring 207 Sq. Metres, situated in Housing Board Colony, Nahan, was the joint property of the parties. It was alleged that half share is owned by Defendant No. 1 and remaining half share by the Plaintiff and proforma Defendant No. 2. It was also alleged that the suit property was purchased by the parties out of their joint funds. The sale deed was executed in favour of Defendant No. 1 as sole owner, It was further alleged that the Plaintiff and preforms Defendant purchased the property in the name of Defendant No. 1 being their elder brother in view of a mutual settlement between the parties. A prayer was also made for the grant of permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from raising construction on the part of the suit property depicted by the blue colour in the site plan. The proforma Defendant supported the Plaintiff's case.

(3.) The suit was contested by Sita Ram, Defendant No. 1, on the ground that he had purchased the property with the income from his own property. He refuted the Plaintiffs claim that he and proforma Defendant had contributed for purchase of the suit property. He further pleaded that he had independently applied for acquisition of a plot to the Housing Board, Shimla in April, . 1980 and acquired the suit property by paying its price from his own pocket. The allegations made in regard to Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 having contributed a sum of Rs. 3,000/- were alleged to be false. He pleaded that he invested a sum of Rs. 2.50 Lacs and no money was contributed by the Plaintiff and proforma Defendant.