- (1.) Plaintiff-respondent Hazura Singh filed the instant suit for declaration claiming himself to be the owner of the suit land relating to the shares of defendants No. 1 to 11. Further claim was made that the sale deed executed by defendants No. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 12 Gurcharan Singh (now appellant) on 13.5.1981 for a sum of Rs. 7500/- was null and void. In the suit, it was alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that the land described in the head note of the plaint which is situated at Vill. Sangatpura was exclusively owned by him, which includes the share already held by defendants No. 1 to 11 and that of the sale executed on 13.5.1981 by defendants No. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 12. It was alleged that land measuring 39 Bighas 3 Biswas was owned by Hazura Singh (plaintiff), his brother Nasib Singh son of Misli to the extent of half share and other half share was owned by Pala. After the death of Pala, there was a dispute of inheritance. Predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 4 to 10 and defendants No. 1 and 2 relinquished their rights in the suit land relating to inheritance of Pala in favour of the plaintiff and Nasib Singh through a registered relinquishment deed dated 17.1.1961. Thus, rights of inheritance relating to the property of Pala concerning defendants No. 1 to 11 ceased to exist and Hazura Singh and Nasib Singh became owners of the said share. Said Nasib Singh died issueless and the plaintiff, who was his brother, succeeded him. Thus, all the rights relating to defendants No. 1 to 11 in the estate of Pala ultimately devolved upon the plaintiff alone. It was a joint khata and the plaintiff considering the whole land belonging to him, cultivated the same to be owner of the whole property and even on behalf of other co-sharers also. After consolidation, new khasra numbers were substituted. Defendants No. 1 to 3 sold their share in the suit property to defendant No. 12, namely, Gurcharan Singh to the extent of 1/54 share of Garja Singh, 1/54 share of Ujagar Singh and 9/54 share of Ajmer Singh. Since their rights had extinguished in the suit property because of the relinquishment deed dated 17.1.1961, they were entitled to sell away the suit property and the sale deed executed by them in favour of defendant No. 2 was null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Hence, the instant suit for declaration.
(2.) Defendants No. 1 to 3 and 12 contested the suit, whereas other defendants were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. The contesting defendants denied the pedigree table and exclusive ownership of the plaintiff. They further denied the relinquishment deed dated 17.1.1961 and alleged that the revenue entries are correct and defendants No. 1 to 3 have rightly sold their share to defendant No. 12, who was a bona fide purchaser in good faith for consideration of a sum of Rs. 7,500/- and as such, was protected under the provisions of law and thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
(3.) In the replication, pleadings of the plaint were reaffirmed and that of the additional objections taken were denied. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- "1. Whether Hazura Singh plaintiff and his brother Nasib Singh deceased were the owner of 1/2 share in khata No. 57/156 of the land situated in Village Sangatpura as alleged in para one of the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether Smt. Kako predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 4 to 10 alongwith Garja Singh defendant No. 1 Ujagar Singh and defendant No. 2, relinquished their right of inheritance to the property of Pala deceased vide registered relinquishment deed dated 17.1.61 as alleged in para. 3 of the plaint? If so, its effect? OPP. 3. Whether plaintiff is the only legal heir entitled to succeed to the property of Nasib Singh deceased as alleged in para. 4 of the plaint? OPP. 4. Whether the sale out of the suit property by defendant No. 1 to 3, in favour of Gurcharan Singh defendant No. 12 is null and void and the sale deeds are liable to be cancelled as alleged in para. 7 and 9 of the plaint? OPP. 5. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP. 6. Whether the suit is within time? OPP. 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 8. Relief.";