SWARAN SINGH Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants, who after having lost before both the learned Courts below have filed the instant appeal. Parties hereinafter referred to as the 'Plaintiffs' and 'Defendant'.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and proforma defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have got their share in the suit land comprised in Khata No. 53, Khatauni No. 55, Khasra No. 48, 51, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 53, 70, 71, 80, 85, 89, 90, 91, 94, 121, 125, 129, 137, 138, 139, 157, 158, 159, 162, 186, 275, 276, 286, 287, 305 kitas 27, measuring 5.09.37 hectares to the extent of 1/5th share each as per Jamabandi for the year 2006-07, situated in Tika Bhati, Tappa Kuthera, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. as the suit land is ancestral property in the hands of defendant No. 1 with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining defendant No. 1 from selling the suit property in any manner whatsoever to anyone without any legal necessity. It was pleaded that suit land is ancestral in nature and had come to the defendant by way of inheritance from his forefathers. Initially, the grand-mother of the defendant namely Smt. Sandhuru Devi was an owner of the suit property. The suit property was inherited by Dal Singh after inheritance vide mutation No. 155 and from Dal Singh, it was inherited by defendant No. 1 vide mutation No. 187. The property in the hands of defendant No. 1 is ancestral in nature. The plaintiffs are sons of the defendant and proforma defendant No. 2 and proforma defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the daughters. All of them have right by birth being co- parceners. The parties are agriculturist and they are governed by Hindu Law. The defendant is threatening to alienate the property without any legal necessity. He has already sold two shops and mortgaged some portion of the suit land with State Bank of Patiala, Hamirpur for an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The defendant had no right to do so and to deprive the plaintiffs of their birth right. The defendant had no legal necessity to alienate the suit property. Hence the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by filing a written statement by defendants No. 1 to 4 taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and cause of action, plaintiffs being estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct, the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts from the court, the suit being bad for mis-joinder of parties. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that the land was given to Smt. Sandhuru Devi, grand-mother of defendant No. 1 and great-grandmother of the plaintiffs by Government of Punjab. She executed a will in favour of her son Dal Singh and he in turn had also executed a will in favour of defendant No. 1. The nature of the property in the hands of defendant No. 1 is self-acquired property. The property was inherited on the basis of the will firstly from Sandhuru Devi and thereafter from Dal Singh and cannot be called to be ancestral in nature. The plaintiffs have no right in the same. The defendant No. 1 had supported and financed the plaintiffs in purchasing land in Village Chowki and Village Lahar. The defendant No. 1 also helped the plaintiffs in the construction of the house in Village Chowki. The sale was executed for legal necessity and the property was mortgaged for obtaining finance for the purchase of Tractor. The plaintiff No. 1 had sold a major part of the land acquired by him by way of pre- emption at throw away prices. The plaintiffs have no concern with the suit land. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.