SAKINDER LAL Vs. VIKRAM JIT & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants, claiming therein that a declaratory decree be pronounced against the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff stood decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom by the defendants before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, whereupon, it dis-concurred with the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, the plaintiff/appellant herein is driven to institute the instant appeal herebefore.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the original defendant No.1 (who died during the pendency of the appeal before the learned First Appellate Court and whose name was deleted on 1.3.1999) was the son of Gokal Ram son of Sampuran. Defendant No.1 had four sons, namely, Sakinder Lal (plaintiff), Vikram jit, Shashi Pal and Balbir Singh, defendants No. 2 to 4. Defendant No.1 owned land in three villages, namely, village Kheri Bacholaran, Jheera and Kanguwali. Plaintiff claims 1/5 shares in the suit land, details whereof given in the plaint, on the grounds that the suit land is ancestral in the hands of his father, defendant No.1 and it was an ancestral joint Hindu family co-parcenary property of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4. The plaintiff's grievance is that defendant No.1 executed a gift deed on 14.3.1989 in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 excluding the plaintiff in respect of the suit land at village Kheri Bacholaran and Kanguwali without any legal necessity and, therefore, he filed a suit for declaration, seeking to impugned the said gift deed being illegal, and for consequence relief of joint possession.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement. In their written statement, the defendants have taken preliminary objections inter alia valuation, non joinder, locus standi, cause of action and estoppel. On merits, it is denied that the suit land is the joint Hindu family co-parcenary property. It is asserted that the plaintiff and defendants do not constitute joint Hindu undivided family, or they are the co-parceners of the suit land. The defendants' case is that about 18 years back, Paira Singh separated from defendant No.1 and plaintiff has been residing separately.