JUDGEMENT
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J. -
(1.) The suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants was decreed in their favour by the Trial Court vide judgement dated 19.8.2010. Separate civil appeals were filed by the defendants against the judgement and vide common impugned judgement dated 22.2.2011, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ropar the appeals have been allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed. Resultantly, the plaintiffs-appellants are in second appeal before this Court.
(2.) Briefly noticed, plaintiff no.1 is the mother of plaintiff no.2 to 4 and was married to defendant no.1 on 4.5.1990. Apparently, the marriage between the parties did not work well and it was stated that plaintiff no.1 along with her children was turned out of the matrimonial house on 16.7.1998 and since then the plaintiffs had been residing with the father of plaintiff no.1. It was stated that plaintiff no.1 had filed an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code and an amount of Rs. 1300/- per month had been fixed towards maintenance allowance. Defendant no.1 was stated to be working in Sugar Mill, Morinda. Defendant no.2 is the father of defendant no.1 and it was pleaded that there was ancestral property which was to be inherited by defendant no.1 as per his share in the property. It is pleaded that plaintiffs no. 2 to 4 have legal right in such property, they being the daughters and sons of defendant no.1. As the defendants were threatening to alienate the property as such a suit for permanent injunction had been instituted.
(3.) The defendants contested the suit in terms of filing separate written statements. Defendant no.1 admitted the factum of marriage with plaintiff no.1 and the birth of plaintiffs no.2 to 4 was also admitted. It was denied that the property in dispute was ancestral property and it was stated that it was defendant no.2, who was the owner in possession of the suit property. Defendant no.2, father of defendant no.1 also filed a written statement on identical lines.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.