LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-66

ROSHAN LAL Vs. PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

Decided On October 14, 2015
ROSHAN LAL Appellant
V/S
Pritam Singh and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant No. 1/appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.1.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshla, H.P. The facts of the case may be noticed as follows: - -

(2.) THE suit land was earlier owned and possessed by Sh. Machala, S/o Sh. Sukhia, i.e. father, husband and maternal grandfather of plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 6. After the death of Machala the suit land was inherited by plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 6 in equal shares being the heirs of class 1st of schedule as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is averred that Smt. Vidya Devi died prior to the death of Machala and as such defendant No. 6 being the Machala's daughter's son (Dotas) inherited the suit land in equal shares with the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 in equal shares. Defendant No. 3 is the step brother of the plaintiff and others are legal heirs of deceased Machala. It is alleged that defendants' No. 5 and 6 have relinquished the land of their shares in favour of plaintiff being nearest relations, but they have also been impleaded as party in the suit in order to avoid any legal complications. On 14.3.2005 defendant No. 2 behind the back of the plaintiff, sold his share in the suit land to defendant No. 1/appellant for sale consideration of Rs. 80,000/ - vide registered sale deed document No. 192 dated 14.3.2005. The said sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1/appellant is wrong, null and void. Consequently, relief of injunction, restraining defendant No. 1/appellant from alienating, raising any sort of construction and cutting and removing trees from the suit land was sought.

(3.) ON merits, it is submitted that defendant/appellant No. 1 was bonafide purchaser of the suit land and the plaintiff never asked defendant No. 2 to sell the land to him. Further alleged that plaintiff asked defendant No. 2 to relinquish her share in his favour and as such plaintiff has got no preferential rights over the suit land and prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.