RSA-3449-2018(O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA-3449-2018(O&M)

Reserved on:-22.3.2023

Date of decision:-28.03.2023

Suraj Bans Singh (since deceased) through LRs

...Appellants

Versus

Pritpal Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Present:

Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with

Mr.Vaibhav Katoch, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr.H.K. Aurora, Advocate

for respondent No.1 (i to iii).

****

H.S. MADAAN, J.

1.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Suraj Bans

Singh son of Amolak Singh, resident of WC-134, Opposite Civil Hospital,

GT Road, Jalandhar (since dead) represented by his LRs had brought a

suit against Pritpal Singh and others, seeking a declaration that plaintiff is

joint owner and in joint possession to the extent of 5/9 share in the suit

property bearing WC 134 situated at GT Road Opposite Civil Hospital,

Jalandhar and sale deed dated 3.12.1999 registered on 10.12.1999

executed by defendant No.2 to 8 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of

specific portion measuring 3 marlas in the house in question is illegal, null

BRIJ MOHAN

2023.03.29 16:58

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment,

HIgh Court, Chandigarh

RSA-3449-2018(O&M)

-2-

and void not binding upon rights of the plaintiff and by way of permanent

injunction restraining defendant No.1 from exercising any act of joint

possession in respect of the portion of the joint property purchased by him

on the basis of impugned sale deed dated 10.12.1999 and from claiming

rent from the tenants, namely Raman Kumar and Arun Pathak in respect

of shop marked X and Maini Marked Y till the partition in due course and

further for declaration that possession of defendant No.1 over the shop

Marked 1 is that of trespasser besides seeking possession by ejectment of

defendant No.1 out of that shop.

2.

As per the version of the plaintiff his father Amolak Singh

was the original owner of the suit property, which was in the form of

dwelling house; Amolak Singh died intestate in the year 1971; thereafter

Sant Kaur, Manmohan Singh, Kuldip Singh, Harpreet Kaur, Narinder

Singh had died leaving behind their respective legal heirs; Davinder Singh

and Baljit Singh – sons and Smt.Narinder Kaur daughter of Amolak Singh

had sold their 1/9^th share each in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff

vide sale deeds dated 11.6.1997, 27.8.2001, registered on 27.8.2001,

12.9.2001 and .1.4.2002, respectively, in that way the plaintiff became

owner to the extent of 5/9 share in the suit property; the suit property is

still joint; 1/9 share belongs to defendants No.9 to 12, LRs of Kuldeep

Singh son of Amolak Singh, Harjit Kaur wife of Narinder Singh on her

own behalf and as a attorney of Jaswinder Singh son of Rani alias

Harpreet Kaur, Micky, Himantika, Rubina and Rajbans Kaur had sold

their respective share measuring 3 marlas, which is the property in dispute

comprising one shop, room on the backside, chubara passage, courtyard

BRIJ MOHAN

2023.03.29 16:58

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment,

HIgh Court, Chandigarh

RSA-3449-2018(O&M)

-3-

and staircase along with all rights appurtenant thereto for Rs.12,50,000/-

to defendant No.1 Pritpal Singh.

According to the plaintiff, since the whole house was joint of

all the LRs of Amolak Singh, therefore defendants No.2 to 8 had no right

to sell specific portion to defendant No.1, who was not member of the

family of Amolak Singh; defendant No.1 had purchased the alleged

specific portion knowing fully well of pre-existing right of the plaintiff

over the portion being tenant in shop since days of Amolak Singh;

defendant No.1 is not member of the family of Amolak Singh, therefore is

not entitled to joint possession with family members of Amolak Singh of

any part of the house; however, on account of mala fide intention of

defendants No.1 to 8, a cloud has been cast on the legal rights of