The plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to joint ownership as the suit property was deemed self-acquired and valid prior decrees rendered the claims inadmissible.

JUDGMENT :

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. Present RSA has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.1999 and by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.2001, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration has been dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The case set up by the plaintiff, as gathered from the plaint and documents placed on record, is that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of half share of the house constructed over Plot No.1, measuring 600 sq. yards, shown in red colour in the site plan. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is a retired Lt. Colonel from Indian Army and is the son of defendant No.1 and brother of defendant No.2. It is averred that defendant No.1 has three daughters, namely Smt. Dharmo, Smt. Manki and Gina Devi. According to the plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2, in connivance with each other, procured a judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 in favour of defendant No.2, which is liable to be set aside.

3. The plaintiff asserts that in November 1989, the plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement regarding division of joint family property and executed a deed of agreement, which was signed by the plaintiff and defendants and attested by witnesses. It is further stated that Plot No.1 was purchased from joint family funds in the name of defendant No.1, and the residential kothi was constructed with joint funds of the plaintiff and defendants. Defendant No.1 is stated to have expressed his intention to divide Kothi No.1 into two portions in his letter dated 11.11.1986 addressed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that he spent about Rs. 20,000/- on renovation and partition by constructing a wall, thereby dividing the kothi into two portions, and that possession of the divided portions was given to the plaintiff and defendant No.2 accordingly.

4. The plaintiff further states that the parties had divided four items of joint family property marked as A, B, C, and D in the division deed. Under Head A, the plaintiff was allotted a house situated at Village Nehla, valued at Rs. 60,000/-, out of which the plaintiff paid Rs. 30,000/- to defendant No.2. The properties under Heads B and C were other land and houses, while the suit property is covered under Head D. Defendant No.2 allegedly expressed his desire to purchase the plaintiff’s half share in Kothi No.1 for Rs. 2,60,000/-, and the plaintiff agreed to sell his share on certain conditions. Defendant No.2 was required to pay Rs. 26,000/- as earnest money by 08.11.1989 and the remaining amount by 07.05.1990. The plaintiff pleads that although defendant No.2 paid the earnest amount, he failed to pay the balance, rendering the agreement void and restoring the earlier partition. The plaintiff alleges that in order to defeat his rights, defendants No.1 and 2 obtained the impugned decree fraudulently.

5. The defendants filed their written statement denying the plaintiff’s case in toto. They denied existence of joint family funds, the purchase of the plot from joint funds, and any agreement of division as alleged. They contended that defendant No.1 purchased the plot in his exclusive name, constructed the house from his own income, and never consented to any division. The defendants asserted that defendant No.2 is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property pursuant to a valid compromise decree dated 25.11.1989, binding on all concerned including the plaintiff. They denied the plaintiff’s right, title or interest in the suit property and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. From