JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

CM-4775-C-2023

This is an application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA-1277-2023(O&M)

Plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rupnagar, vide which the suit of the plaintiff for joint possession was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. One Sadhu Singh had three sons, namely, Amrik Singh, Avtar Singh and Hardeep Singh. The plaintiff (Jaspreet Kaur) is the daughter of late Hardeep Singh son of Sadhu Singh, meaning thereby that Sadhu Singh was her paternal grandfather. She instituted a suit against Sadhu Singh. The daughter and son of Avtar Singh and the daughter of Amrik Singh, both sons of Sadhu Singh, were also impleaded as defendants No.2 to 4, respectively.

4. The suit was for joint possession for declaring the plaintiff as a joint owner, co-sharer and in joint possession with the defendants relating to her share in land (fully described in the plaint), situated in Village Lakhmipur, Tehsil and District Rupnagar, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the suit land’). A declaration was also sought that the suit land was Joint Hindu Family, Coparcenary and Ancestral property of the parties and the plaintiff was having a right in the same from her birth. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, alienating and mortgaging the suit land was also sought.

4.1 It was claimed that father of the plaintiff, namely, Hardeep Singh had expired on 12.09.1995, leaving behind the plaintiff and his widow Kuldeep Kaur. The brothers of Hardeep Singh, namely, Amrik Singh and Avtar Singh had also expired. The plaintiff claimed that she was joint owner, co-sharer and in joint possession of the suit land with the defendants being member of a Joint Hindu Family, coparcenary and ancestral property, which had come to possession of Sadhu Singh from his father Fauja Singh.

4.2 It was averred that entries in the revenue records as regards the suit land in the names of the defendants were wrong and the name of the plaintiff was also required to be recorded. Since the defendants were not admitting her claim, she instituted the suit.

5. The defendants filed a joint written statement raising preliminary objections as regards maintainability, locus standi, the plaintiff having not approached the Court with clean hands, concealment, non-affixation of proper court fee, the suit being bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiff was residing in Village Lakhmipur. It was averred that she was residing with her mother in her parental house after the death of Hardeep Singh. It was also averred that the plaintiff had never come in possession of the suit land and that the suit land was not coparcenary and ancestral property of Sadhu Singh.

6. During the course of the suit, Sadhu Singh expired and his legal representatives were brought on record.

7. In the replication, the averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.

8. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

I. Whether present suit property is joint Hindu family/coparcenary/ ancestral property? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for joint possession as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

5. Whether present suit is not ma