PURAN SINGH Vs. SANSAROO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil second appeal against the dismissal of the suit of the appellant -plaintiff by the court of the Sub -judge, Kathua on 17 -2 -1964 confirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Kathua, on 15 -6 -1966. The facts giving rise to this case are that the appellant brought a suit for joint possession of 104 Kanals of land representing 118th of 2014 kanals 14 marlas comprised of various survey numbers in village Kathua on the side of Tajwal. The case of the plaintiff was that Rangiloo, his father, was in possession of this land. He had married Lajoo, the daughter of Thaker Singh of Berla at present Maro Patti Tehsil Basohli. The plaintiff alongwith his sister Mst. Boo was born out of this wed -lack. His father Rangillo had by means of sale deed dated 3 -5 -2013 Bikrarai i.e. 18th May 1956 sold 14 kanals 6 marlas from survey No 242 and 8 kanals 6 marlas from survey No 240 in favour of Hansraj defdt. No. 136 for Rs. 2000/ -. Rangiloo had received only Rs. 55/ - out of the alleged consideration and the remaining Rs. 1.945/ - which were deposited with the Sub Registrar Kathua, were taken away by the defendents 1 to 7 representing themselves to be the heirs of Rangiloo by practising deception upon the Sub Registrar. Later on the defendant No. 1 through his son Bedi Singh Defdt. 137 got a suit for pre -emption with respect to this land instituted against the vendee defendant No. 136 Hansraj, but possession was not taken by this Badri Singh on the basis of this suit. The alleged sale was without any legal necessity and only Rs. 55/ - were received by Rangiloo, therefore this sale was not binding upon the plaintiff who was the legitimate son of Rangiloo. Hence the plaintiff -appellant prayed for decree for possession.

(2.) A joint written statement was filed by a number of defendants. Defendant No. 135 Hans Raj, the vendee, filed a separate written statement. The main pleas taken by the defendants were that Lajoo was not the legally weded wife of Rangiloo, she was the wife of one Sarbanoo and Puran Singh plaintiff was not the legitimate child of Rangiloo from Lajoo.

(3.) THE following issues were framed in this case: -