HARBANS SINGH Vs. KUNDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of appeals was taken up together for consideration and is being disposed of by common judgment as it involves overlapping issues.

(2.) The parties are ad idem that the fate of other appeals virtually would be dependent on outcome of RSA No. 201/2003, therefore, the same is taken up as the lead case. The parties shall be referred to as the "plaintiff" and "defendants".

(3.) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that the plaintiff and defendants are sons of Tulsi Ram and being real brothers are co-owners in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that in the recent settlement, the suit land was assigned new Khasra numbers whereas in the year 1973, the plaintiff and defendant No.1, Kundan Lal (since deceased) had agreed to exchange the suit land with the understanding that defendant No.1 would relinquish his entire 1/3rd share in the suit land in his favour and the plaintiff would give him equal land to the extent of the share of defendant No.1 in Mauja Dochi. He therefore, purchased land measuring 15 bighas 6 biswas from one Kaka Ram through a registered sale deed No.91,dated 1.10.1973 and out of this land, 1/2 share of the land was transferred in favour of defendant No.1 by way of said sale showing him to be the purchaser and owner of 1/2 share i.e. 7 bighas 13 biswas despite the fact that the said land was exclusively purchased by the plaintiff from said Kaka Ram. It was further averred that at that time, defendant No.1 was un-employed having no source of income and thus, by way of purchase in the name of defendant No.1, the plaintiff had performed his part of the agreement and defendant No.1 was required to relinquish his 1/2 share of the land situated in Mauja Dhariyan, i.e. the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had been cultivating the suit land, therefore, he had made lot of improvements by raising an orchard, but defendant No.1 started demanding his share in the land relying upon wrong revenue entries and threatened to seek partition. Hence, the suit.