JASBIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. TARLOK SINGH AND ANOTHER
LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-1018
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 01,2014

Jasbir Singh And Others Appellant
VERSUS
TARLOK SINGH AND ANOTHER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1, 3 and 4 were sons and defendants No.5 and 6 are the daughters of deceased Bant Singh. The 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant.
(2.) It is contended by the plaintiffs that the land in dispute is the ancestral joint Hindu co-parcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1, 3 and 4. It was held by Bant Singh as karta of the family. The plaintiffs acquired birth right in the suit land being the co-parceners. The plaintiffs came to know that the land in village Bhattian was wrongly entered into in the name of the 1st defendant on the basis of the impugned decree dated 18.5.1993 and the ownership of the land in village Rajgarh was entered into in the name of the 2nd defendant on the basis of impugned sale deed dated 21.2.1994, when he proceeded to get the mutation done on the demise of Bant Singh. It is contended that the decree dated 18.5.1993 was collusive and illegally obtained. Bant Singh never suffered any such decree in favour of 1st defendant. He never engaged any counsel in the said suit. Nor had he filed any written statement. The above decree has come into existence on account of misrepresentation and fraud. Bant Singh did not execute any sale deed in favour of 2nd defendant. It was fictitious and was executed without any consideration playing fraud and misrepresentation upon Bant Singh by 1st defendant in connivance with 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs having thus pleaded sought for declaration that the impugned decree dated 18.5.1993 and the sale deed dated 21.2.1994 were fictitious and illegal. The plaintiffs also sought for permanent injunction from alienating the suit property.
(3.) The 1st defendant filed written statement alleging that the suit property was not joint Hindu ancestral co-parcenary property. The decree was passed in favour of 1st defendant based on the family settlement. The suit is barred by limitation. Bant Singh also executed a Will in favour of the defendants No.1, 3 and 4 in his sound disposing state of mind. The properties are self-acquired properties of Bant Singh.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.