BIDHI SINGH Vs. JASWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal directed against judgment and decree dated 13.03.1989 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar whereby appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.1986 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Anandpur Sahib was dismissed.

(2.) For convenience sake, hereinafter, reference to parties is being made as per their status in civil suit.

(3.) The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that the plaintiff Bidhi Singh filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief that he is the owner as co-sharer in possession of land measuring 1marla-4 karams being 1/5th share in khasra No.22R/1(0-5) Gair mumkin abadi situated in village Bhaini Police Station Nurpur Bedi, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib on the basis of agreement of sale executed by defendant No.2 in his favour on 15.06.1971. The plaintiff has also sought declaration that the sale deed executed subsequently by defendant No.2 Teja Singh in favour of defendant No.1 Jaswant Singh regarding the suit land is illegal, null and void and does not effect the rights of the plaintiff in any way. The plaintiff also sought relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from illegally and forcibly dispossessing him or raising any construction in the suit land. In the alternative, the plaintiff claimed a relief for possession of the suit land. As per plaintiff, the parties to the litigation are family members as plaintiff and defendant No.2 are real brothers and defendant No.1 is the son of their brother Rattan Singh. On 15.06.1971 defendant No.2 had executed an agreement of sale in his favour regarding the suit land and delivered the possession to him and, as such, the plaintiff became owner/co-sharer in possession of the suit. Otherwise also, he is the co-sharer in possession as he had inherited 1/6th share from his father and 1/12th share on the death of his mother. Both the defendants were having knowledge that the plaintiff had been enjoying the property as co-sharer and the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land peacefully and continuously without any interruption. Defendant No.2 never objected to the same. The defendants are estopped by their own act and conduct from challenging the rights in the suit land.