- (1.) Plaintiffs/appellants are in second appeal against the concurrent findings passed by both the courts below whereby their suit for declaration was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Barnala vide its judgment and decree dated 11.11.2011 and the findings thereof have been affirmed in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala vide its judgment and decree dated 21.02.2012.
(2.) Brief facts for proper adjudication of the case are that Kura Singh son of Puran Singh(father of plaintiff nos.1 & 3 and husband of plaintiff no.2) along with defendant no.2 was owner of the property in question. Kura Singh died and mutation of his inheritance bearing no.6371 has been sanctioned in favour of plaintiff nos.1 & 3 to the extent of 2/3 rd share and in favour of plaintiff no.2 & defendant no.2 to the extent of remaining 1/3 rd share. As such the plaintiffs and defendant no.2 became the owners of the said house. The said fact was in knowledge of defendant no.2, still the defendants in connivance with each other started asserting defendant no.2 to be the exclusive owner of the said property. It was further alleged that defendant no.2 executed one agreement to sell in favour of defendant no.1 on 21.05.2005 for sale of the property and got instituted one C.S. No.388 of 23.08.2005 in which decree was passed in favour of defendant no.1. The said decree has been challenged by the plaintiffs/appellants to the present suit.
(3.) Upon notice, defendant no.1 filed written statement by stating that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in connivance with defendant no.2 as the plaintiffs have no locus standi of filing the present suit. On merits it was pleaded that Kura Singh was owner of the house in dispute and in a family settlement the house in dispute had fallen to the share of defendant no.2 who in turn had entered into the impugned agreement to sell dated 21.05.2005. The filing of the suit was admitted and it was stated that the said suit was decreed in her favour on 21.12.2007 and as such she alleged herself to be the owner in possession of the house in dispute. Thus prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. Defendant no.2 did not come present and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.;