ARUN PALLI,J. - (1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court and vide same judgment and decree dated 21.02.2012, counter claim preferred by defendant No.1 i.e. Resham Kaur was dismissed. Being aggrieved, defendant No.1 -Resham Kaur preferred two separate appeals which were dismissed by learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2012. That is how, defendant No.1 is before this Court in these two Regular Second Appeals. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit. In a suit filed by plaintiff -Harbhajan Singh, he claimed a decree for injunction simpliciter, restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the land measuring 4 kanal 3 marlas, situated at village Palli Jhikki, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr. It was averred that Chinta, father of the plaintiff, was the owner in possession of the suit property and he sold the same to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 09.06.2003. Accordingly, plaintiff was put in possession of the suit land and since then, he continues to be in actual physical possession thereof and has sown the janter crop in the said land. It was maintained that the suit land was the self -acquired property of Chinta. Defendant No.1 happened to be the widow of the real brother of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 were her daughters. Father of the plaintiff, vide registered sale deed dated 09.10.1991, had also transferred the land measuring 4 kanal 9 marlas in favour of Amar Nath. Post death of Amar Nath on 07.07.2002, defendants being his heirs have succeeded to his estate. Thus, they had no right, title or interest in the suit property.
(2.) DEFENDANTS pleaded, inter alia, that although the suit property was owned by Chinta, but he had bequeathed the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 in a family settlement after her marriage with Amar Nath i.e. about 24 years back, as Amar Nath was not keeping good health. In fact, the suit land was given to defendant No.1 in recognition of her pre -existing right of maintenance by way of family settlement. Since the land in question was a Joint Hindu Family property in the hands of Chinta, he had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In a counter claim filed by Resham Kaur (defendant No.1), she prayed to be declared owner in possession of the land measuring 4 kanal 3 marla i.e. the suit property. In response to the counter claim, plaintiff -Harbhajan Singh disputed the nature of the property as Joint Hindu Family property and asserted that the suit land was the self -acquired property of Chinta. The existence of the purported family settlement between Chinta and Resham Kaur was denied. On an analysis of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, the trial court arrived at a conclusion that the sale deed dated 09.06.2003 (Ex.P1), executed by Chinta in favour of the plaintiff, was proved on record. Further, the statement of none other than defendant Resham Kaur (Ex.P8), revealed that in the previous proceedings she had conceded the possession of the plaintiff as well as the execution of the sale deed by Chinta in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P5 showed that Resham Kaur had already been disinherited, which completely belied her case that she was granted a right of maintenance by her father -in -law or was in possession of the suit property. Recitals in the sale deed coupled with the statement of Reshak Kaur (Ex.P8) proved possession of the plaintiff -Harbhajan Singh. So much so, defendant No.1 i.e. Resham Kaur did not even step into the witness box to support her case. And to deny the case of her adversary. Nothing was brought on record to prove the alleged family settlement, pursuant whereof the suit land was transferred by Chinta in favour of Resham Kaur. Accordingly, the suit was decreed and counter claim preferred by defendant No.1 -Resham Kaur was dismissed.
(3.) BEING dissatisfied with the said decree, defendant No.1 filed two separate appeals. Learned first appellate court reviewed the matter in issue, evidence on record and on an analysis thereof found itself in concurrence with the view drawn by the trial court and the findings recorded in support thereof. It was reiterated that the sale deed dated 09.06.2003, executed by Chinta in favour of the plaintiff, are duly proved. Defendants had failed to prove that the property, indeed, was ancestral in the hands of Chinta. Possession of the plaintiff was found to have been proved on the basis of the statement of none other than defendant No.1 herself (Ex.P8). Nothing was brought on record by her to substantiate that she had actually acquired title in the suit property pursuant to any family settlement between Chinta and herself. In any case, she did not choose to appear in the witness box and depose in support of her case. Accordingly, appeals being bereft of merit were dismissed.;