Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

1. The epitome of facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of present petition and emanating from the record, is that, Hargursharan Singh son of late Gurbax Singh, respondent-plaintiff, (hereinafter to be referred as "the plaintiff) filed the present suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner and in possession, to the extent of 50% share, of the house in dispute, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining Lt. Col. Hargobind Singh (retired) son of late Gurbakhsh Singh, petitioner-defendant (hereinafter to be referred as "the defendant") from alienating the house in question in any manner.

2. The case set up by the plaintiff, in brief, in so far as relevant to decide the present controversy, was that the parties to the lis are real brothers. The defendant joined the army at young age, while plaintiff was cultivating the land in the village. In the year 1968, the defendant approached the plaintiff and proposed that as he was eligible for allotment of plot from defence quota, therefore, they should jointly purchase the house in question. Plaintiff believed and trusted his elder brother blindly and gave Rs.48,000/- in cash out of his income and funds earned from agriculture produce with the promise that the defendant would buy the plot in Chandigarh in their joint name to the extent of 50% share each. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had purchased/got allotted two kanals plot out of money, which was paid by the plaintiff, in his own name. On enquiry in this regard, the defendant assured the plaintiff to give his share later on the plea that as per rules, the plot could only be allotted in the name of the defendant out of quota for defence personnel and later on it will be entered in their joint names. Therefore, they decided to put this entire transactions in writing, in order to avoid any dispute in future. Consequently, a family settlement deed dated 10.11.1970 was executed by the defendant out of his free will in the presence of witnesses.

3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, concisely, according to the plaintiff that he is joint owner and in possession of the house in dispute to the extent of 50% share in pursuance of family settlement deed dated 10,11.1970. He asked the defendant to enter his name in the record of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh but in vain. Instead of giving his half share in the property in dispute, the defendant intends to alienate the house in dispute without any legal rights. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant, in the manner indicated here-in-above.

4. The defendant contested the suit inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the suit, locus standi and cause of action of the plaintiff etc. On merits, the allotment of the plot/house in question was not disputed. However, the defendant claimed that he himself had paid the entire consideration amount. After depositing the amount, possession was delivered to him and conveyance deed was executed in his favour on 18.05.1971 by the Estate Officer. The plaintiff never contributed anything and did not pay any amount for the purchase of the house. The family settlement/agreement deed dated 10.11.1970 was stated to be a forged document. Succinctly, the defendant claimed that he is the absolute owner of the house in dispute, the indicated family settlement/agreement deed is a forged document and the plaintiff did not make any payment of consideration amount of the house. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Having completed all the codal formalities and in the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the relevant is