The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for parties to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, explain key actions, and address any deficiencies in their case, including the absence of necessary parties and belated applications for additional evidence.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - CM-10514-C-2018

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off.

RSA-3904-2019

3. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.

4. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction averring in the plaint that one Lakhi Ram was owner to the extent of half share and Kishna and Risalo, son and daughter respectively, of Hari Ram were owners to the extent of other half share in residential house comprised in Khewat No.38, Khata No.65, Rectangle and Killa No.108 measuring 16 Marlas i.e. 484 sq. yards fully shown in the site plan marked by letters ABCD. The case set up by the plaintiff-appellants was that on 26.03.1975, Kishna and Risalo mortgaged with possession their half share in favour of Surat Singh and Sher Singh sons of Lakhi Ram for a consideration of 3,000/- and it was stated that the property would be redeemed within a period of one year and in default the property would be considered as sold and the mortgagees would automatically become owners of the said property. It was further the case that since the property was not redeemed, Sher Singh and Surat Singh became owners of the mortgaged property. It was further the case in the plaint that Lakhi Ram, in order to give equal shares to his sons, made a family settlement in June 1977 wherein it was orally settled that the property situated at Sonepat would be given to Sher Singh i.e. predecessor-in-interest of defendant-respondents and the property situated in the village Hasanpur would be given to Surat Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff- appellants. It was further the case that the settlement was arrived at in the presence of Kartar Singh son of Chhattar Singh and Randhir Singh son of Jai Lal and in view of the settlement the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff- appellants i.e. Surat Singh became exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. It was further the case that on 29.07.1977 the family arrangement made earlier was reduced into writing and the share of Sher Singh in the suit property came to the share of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff- appellants i.e. Surat Singh. It was further the case that on 12.05.2013 a public meeting was convened between village Sarpanch and other respectables of the village and it was declared that as per the oral settlement between Lakhi Ram, Surat Singh and Sher Singh, the suit property had fallen to the share of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellants i.e. Surat Singh. On notice, written statement was filed by the defendant- respondents wherein it was stated that the suit property was jointly owned and possessed by the parties along with other co-sharers who had not been impleaded as a party. The factum of any family settlement was denied. It was further stated that Sher Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondents, had purchased half share of the property at Sonepat from Surat Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellants, for a valuable consideration of 600/- vide registered sale deed dated 17.08.1977.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for permanent injunction whereby defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs over the suit property as mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint ? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

5. Whether no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiffs to file the present suit