Arun Palli, J. - (1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2011. The appeal preferred against the said decree also failed and was, accordingly, dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.01.2012. That is how, the plaintiff is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.
(2.) PLAINTIFF prayed for exclusive possession being owner of plot/khola, as shown by letters ABCD in site plan attached with the plaint with a consequential relief of injunction that defendant be restrained from raising any further construction during the pendency of the suit. In short, the case set out by the plaintiff was that she was the owner of the suit property. It was stated that she had purchased 1/2 share in the suit property along with some other property, vide registered sale deed dated 14.09.1984, executed by Sodhi Manmohan Singh and Sodhi Kirpal Singh son of Ganga Singh for valuable consideration. The other 1/2 share was purported to have been purchased by Joginder Singh, husband of the plaintiff, vide registered sale deed dated 12.05.1981 from Niranjan Singh son of Bachint Singh. It was averred that original sale deed dated 14.09.1984 was lying deposited in Punjab National Bank, whereas, original sale deed dated 12.05.1981 was not traceable. Joginder Singh had expired on 31.05.2001 and he bequeathed his property including his 1/2 share in the suit property in the name of the plaintiff, vide a Will dated 09.05.2001. Thus, the plaintiff became owner of the entire suit property. There have stated to be pucca Well and bathrooms in existence in the said property. Defendant, who was Manager of Gurudwara Takhat Shri Kesgarh Sahib, started holding out threat to forcibly occupy the suit property and raise construction. He even started collecting the material at site and digging foundations. Plaintiff moved an application to the police on 06.05.2004 and also to Secretary, S.G.P.C., Amritsar through fax. But to no avail. The plaintiff claims possession after demolition of construction on the expense of defendant.
(3.) IN defence, the defendant denied the ownership of the plaintiff vis -a -vis the suit property. It was claimed that the suit property was exclusively owned and possessed by the defendant. Site plan filed by the plaintiff was pleaded to be incorrect. Suit premises with pucca Well therein were never sold to the plaintiff by said Sodhi Manmohan Singh and Niranjan Singh, who themselves were never the owners and in possession thereof. The sale deeds were purported to be void and illegal and also they do not confer any right either in the plaintiff or her husband. The Will propounded by the plaintiff was stated to be forged. Pucca small room built on the Northern side of the premises was stated to have been built more than 50 years ago. Three phase electric motor was purported to have been installed by the defendant for taking water of Well.;