AMRI DEVI Vs. BHURU, SON OF SHRI HIRDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant under section 100 C.P.C against the judgment and decree, dated 13.5.2010, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, vide which he set aside the judgment and decree, dated 9.4.2008, of the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.4, District Mandi, H.P., decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that she is owner in possession of the land in suit.

(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 in which her minor son, respondents No.3 and 4 herein, were also impleaded as plaintiffs. The suit was filed against the respondents, hereinafter also referred to as defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiff alleged that she be declared owner in possession of the land measuring 3-10-0 bigha and a house consisting of five rooms as per compromise dated 28.2.2001 and the defendants be restrained from alienating, selling or creating any charge on the suit property in favour of any person. She alleged that she was the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1 and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are their sons who are living with plaintiff No.1. She alleged that defendant No.1 had ousted her alongwith her sons from the house and she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against defendant No.1. The said petition was compromised on 28.2.2001 and defendant No.1 agreed to give the land and house in question since she was residing in that house and was also cultivating the land. The defendants also agreed that they will not alienate, mortgage or sell the suit property to any person during her life time. Thus, she pleaded that she is absolute owner in possession of the suit land and the house and is entitled to the relief claimed by her. She had also challenged the gift made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 before the filing of the suit and also challenged the exchange attested in favour of defendant No.2.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: