KULDIP SINGH Vs. BALI RAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2004, dated 12.07.2006, vide which the learned lower Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the then learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 85/1 of 2000, dated 10.11.2004.

(2.) Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') maintained a suit against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is joint owner-in-possession alongwith defendant No. 5/proforma defendant No. 5 Sukh Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'proforma defendant No. 5') to the extent of half share with the defendants of the suit land being the Joint Hindu Family Property and for restraining the defendants from interfering with the half share of the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 5. The plaintiff has alleged that the entries in the name of deceased Dhanni Devi qua the suit land are null and void and the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 5 are owners-in-possession to the extent of half share of the suit land. The plaintiff has further alleged that the suit land is Joint Hindu Family Property except few land, which has been given to defendant No. 1 and proforma defendant No. 5 by way of gift by Smt. Nardu. The grand father of the plaintiff, i.e. Shri Sunder is stated to have enjoyed the suit property belonging to H.U.F. The plaintiff has also alleged that he and defendants, being male Hindu members of H.U.F., have got right in the suit property by way of their birth. Dhanni Devi, being female, is stated to have no right, title or interest in the property left by deceased Sunder. She never remained in possession of any land during her life time.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 to 4 resisted and contested the suit by filing written statement, in which it was denied that the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 5 have half share in the suit land. The defendants have averred that the entire suit land was owned and possessed by Sunder, the grand father of the plaintiff and father of defendant No. 1 & proforma defendant No. 5. Said Sunder Singh died in the year 1993 and his entire moveable and immovable property was inherited by Dhanni Devi being his widow and defendant No. 1 and proforma defendant No. 5, i.e. Bali Ram and Sukh Ram, being his sons. Mutation No. 57 dated 02.02.1994 to that effect was stated to be sanctioned in the presence of Bali Ram and Sukh Ram. The defendants have averred that Dhanni Devi had inherited this property from her husband.