SURAKSHA & ANOTHER Vs. ADARSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree, for permanent prohibitory injunction besides for rendition of a decree, for declaration, stood dismissed, by the learned trial Court, whereas, in an appeal carried therefrom, by the plaintiff before the learned First Appellate Court, the Appellate Court, affirmed, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court vis-a-vis the valid execution of gift deed of 12.06.1995 except qua property borne in Ex.P-6, besides qua valid execution of Will, by the deceased testator vis-a-vis defendant Surender Kumar. Emphasisingly, the learned First Appellate Court, reversed, the trial Court's findings vis-a-vis gift deed made qua Khasra Nos. 1375, 1378, 1381, 1382, 1383 and 1384, khasra numbers whereof extantly bear Khasra No.256, and, is carried in Ex.P-6, exhibit whereof is the authentic Hindi translation, from Urdu, of the apt jamabandi, (a) wherein khasra No.256 stands reflected as abadi tika, and, carries an area of 2-10 bighas, (b) tritely on the ground of it being ancestral coparcenary property.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff claimed himself to be the son of defendant No.1 and it had been claimed that the suit property as detailed in the plaint is ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.1, who has succeeded it from his father Jai Lal and the parties being Mitakshara Hindu Joint Family, the defendant have no right or title to bequeath the suit property in any manner. However, defendant No.1 bequeathed the suit property by way of gift in favour of his second wife i.e. defendant No.2, whereas, the plaintiff, who is the son, has been deprived of his right of share being a coparcener. It had also been averred that the gift deed dated 16.1985, is void and illegal. The plaintiff had also sought decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants to change the nature and character the suit land or to alienate it, in any way.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections of estoppel, cause of action, locus standi maintainability and limitation. On merits, it had also been averred that the suit land is not joint Hindu Family coparcenary property and it was the self acquired property in the hands of defendant No.1 and he has every right to alienate it or deal with the property in any manner. It has, therefore, been averred that the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, qua the suit land is legal and valid and thereby the suit is not maintainable. The defendants have also averred that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of injunction having got no right of title over the suit land.