Amol Rattan Singh, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff is in second appeal after his suit was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phillaur and the first appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. He had filed a suit seeking a declaration that he, alongwith respondents No. 2 and 3 (defendants), i.e. his brother and mother respectively, be declared to be co -owners to the extent of 1/3rd share of land measuring 4 kanals and 5 marlas and be put in possession thereof after declaring that the 1st respondent (defendant no.1 in the suit) has been shown in illegal ownership and possession thereof.
(2.) THE suit land is stated to have been previously owned and possessed by the father of the appellant and respondent No. 2 (husband of respondent No. 3), in village Pasala, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. Gian Singh, i.e. the father of the appellant, died on 27.07.1997 and thereafter, as per the plaint, the appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 inherited the land in equal shares. All the three are generally stated to be resident outside India and when the appellant came to India in January 2003 and approached the village Patwari to get the suit land mutated in his and his co -sharers' names, he allegedly came to know that it stands the name of respondent No. 1, Balwinder Singh son of Gurdip Singh. Upon query, respondent No. 1 is stated to have told him that he had purchased the suit land from Gian Singh vide a sale deed on the basis of which the mutation was entered in his favour. However, according to the appellant, Gian Singh never sold the land nor received any consideration for such sale. Balwinder Singh is stated to be the son of the brother of Gian Singh, i.e. he is the first cousin of the appellant and respondent No. 2. The appellant further alleged that Balwinder Singh may have impersonated Gian Singh and forged a thumb impression showing it to be that of Gian Singh, on the sale deed. As such, he alleged that the sale deed being a forgery and a fraudulent transaction, did not convey any right, title or interest in the suit land on defendant No. 1. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were held to be proforma respondents as the suit was also for their benefit, but who had not been joined as plaintiffs, as they were not resident of India at that time.
(3.) ON being issued notice, respondent (defendant No. 1) filed a written statement in which other than the usual preliminary objections of lack of locus -standi etc., he stated that the suit land had been purchased by him from Gian Singh vide a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1996, for valuable consideration and consequently, he had come in possession thereof. He further stated that the appellant and his brother, alongwith their mother had been living in the house of their maternal grand -parents, i.e. parents of respondent No. 3, since childhood and had not been accompanying Gian Singh anywhere right upto the time that they left India. In fact, respondent No. 2 even when in India thereafter, never lived with Gian Singh, leaving him to his own fate. Therefore, when Gian Singh was not in a position to earn for himself, even for his treatment, he sold out this land for a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/ - vide a registered sale deed, to respondent No. 1, on 27.06.1996. Upon replication having been filed, reiterating the contents of the plaint, the following issues were framed by the Additional Civil Judge: - "1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the land measuring 4 kanals 5 marlas? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD Whether the plaintiff is barred by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD;