INDER SINGH Vs. SUKHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is in regular second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that land measuring 166 kanals, 3 marlas as shown in the plaint is a joint land between the parties and the plaintiff is in possession of 23 kanals, 2 marlas of land on the basis of arrangement. Mutations No.8275 and 8276 sanctioned on 30.09.1998 are illegal, null, void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. He further sought decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from disposing of specific khasra numbers on the basis of entry in the revenue record. Plaintiff pleaded that he is owner of 462/3323 share as per jamabandi for the year 1994-95. Earlier he was owner of 35 kanals, 7 marlas of land, out of which he disposed of 12 kanals, 5 marlas in favour of defendants No.7, 10 and 11. The suit land has not been partitioned between the parties. He further pleaded that khasra No.173, killa No.26(20-8), musteel No.204, killa No.26(19-17) were kept as reserved. Plaintiff came to know that mutations No.8275 and 8276 dated 30.09.1998 were got sanctioned by the defendants, whereas there was no document or rapat with the Patwari in respect of family partition or partition by consent. The alleged partition did not take place at any point of time, nor any arrangement was made in respect of passage and water course. The property is claimed to be joint between the parties and mutations No.8275 and 8276 dated 30.09.1998 are required to be ignored being illegal and fraudulent.

(3.) Defendants No.1 to 3 and 6 contested the suit jointly by filing common written statement. They pleaded that the property was partitioned by way of consent on the basis of which mutations in question were sanctioned. The aforesaid defendants claimed themselves to be in possession of specific khasra numbers. Passage and water course were also adjusted with the consent of the parties. Defendants No.4 and 5 admitted the claim of the plaintiff.