LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-53

BHAGU Vs. JAGTAR SINGH AND ORS.

Decided On February 09, 2016
BHAGU Appellant
V/S
Jagtar Singh And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2013, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phillaur, has been dismissed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is being mentioned as in the original suit.

(3.) As per the case of the plaintiff -appellant, he purchased a plot vide sale deed Ex. P -5 dated 25.10.1982 out of Khasra No. 124/5/3 (2 -10). His wife Azeezan also purchased equal share out of the same Khasra number vide sale deed Ex. P -3 dated 25.10.1982, both of them have constructed the house on the suit plot measuring 20 Marlas. Smt. Azeezan wife of the plaintiff -appellant died about 9 years prior to the date of filing the suit. The appellant -plaintiff has pleaded that in -fact the entire property was purchased by him, but he had got executed the sale deed in favour of his wife out of love and affection. The plaintiff was residing joint with his sons namely Amrik, Buta Mohammad @ Buta Malik, Rachhpal and Jagtar Singh. Plaintiff has challenged the sale deed dated 03.10.2005 allegedly executed by him in favour of his son -defendant Jagtar Singh for the alleged sale consideration of Rs. 3 lacs. The appellant -plaintiff has challenged the said sale deed on the ground that he never executed the said sale deed in favour of the defendant. He did not receive even a penny out of the alleged sale consideration of Rs. 3 lacs. The said sale deed is illegal, null and void and without consideration. It was further pleaded that defendant might have obtained the thumb impression of the plaintiff on the alleged sale deed by fraud or misrepresentation in collusion with the deed writer and marginal witnesses on pretext of obtaining the power of attorney with respect to the plot measuring 6 1/2 Marlas, which had fallen to his share as a result of family settlement.