RAMESH CHAND Vs. GULSHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. Plaintiffs' predecessor, Sohan Lal, vide a deed dated 28.8.1937, labeled Tamliknama, gave his half share in land, measuring 20 Kanals 12 Marlas, to his brother Kali Dass for management, as he himself was sick and though he had a son, named Daya Sagar, he did not trust him and felt that he will squander away the property. Soon after the execution of Tamliknama, Sohan Lal died. Kali Dass, in whose favour the Tamliknama was executed by Sohan Lal, executed a relinquishment deed in the year 1938, relinquishing the property in favour of latter's son, Daya Sagar. Plaintiffs-appellants are the legal heirs of Daya Sagar. They filed a suit claiming that they are owners in possession of the entire area of Khasra Nos.521 and 522 and sought issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering in their possession.

(2.) RESPONDENTS -defendants contested the claim. Their plea was that they had been bequeathed half share in the suit property by Kalawati, the widow of Kali Dass, a brother of Sohan Lal. They pleaded that Kali Dass was joint owner to the extent of half share with Sohan Lal and that during his life time he had executed a Will in favour of his wife Kalawati and before her death (Kalawati died in the year 1991) she executed a Will in favour of the defendants. The case of the plaintiffs was definite and specific that Sohan Lal was owner of the whole of the property, bearing Khasra Nos. 521 and 522 and that he had given it by Tamliknama to his brother Kali Dass for management and so he could not have made any Will in respect of any portion thereof.

(3.) IT has been urged before this Court on behalf of the appellants that as a matter of fact Kali Dass's half share was mortgaged with some person and that the mortgage had been redeemed by Sohan Lal and, thus, he had the right to remain in possession of the whole of the property, even of Kali Dass's share because its mortgage had been redeemed by him (Sohan Lal). The argument cannot be even taken note of for the simple reason that no foundation for such an argument is laid in the pleadings. Otherwise also, the mutation of redemption of mortgage indicates that the redemption had taken place in the year 1920, whereas Tamliknama was executed in the year 1937 and in the said Tamliknama Sohan Lal had himself stated that he was owner to the extent of only half share in the suit property and that he was passing on the management of that half share to his brother Kali Dass.