Harjinder Singh v. Sukhjinder Singh And ORS
!"# $% &' ( )
Versus
"' *+"
," ,,
!
---- " ,,
. +#
!#
$
%
''''
()*
% # ,
(, - * .
#!
/
$ #
( *
%
% # !
1 !
& !
10# "")
!# '2'3'4
#
#
#
'3'3'2 !
%## ! 6
.
# 7
2 7
#+
#!
#
# !
#!
8
#
* $/0123$,0$3$,/0 Versus $4 3$$$,/0 $2#56+ *.
7,893483%:)
!
+ "
#
#+ # !
!
10# ""
! !
!
!
"
)
&
10# ""
!#
""
#
10
12
#
2 7
9##
: 154 (
1* -! .
122 ;
25
(< 7
!*
= !
1)
"
1
1
! #+
# ## ;
!##
! ##+
! 7 # > +
!
1
1
"
#
+ + ! ! ! + !
!
?
!
()*
#
10# ""
#
% !
4@'
!
'''4
!+
jamabandi
# 7 "
#7
= !
#+ #
!
"
!
''4
!
#
'5''4
'2'3'4 !# !
! !!
"
10# ""
''4
1
#
#
=!
) "
That the plaintiff came to India on 20.01.2019 and he thereafter approached the Patwari Halqa to obtain a copy of the jamabandi of the suit plot. From the patwari Halqa, the plaintiff gained knowledge that the defendant No.1 has illegally and without title executed the following sale deeds:) Sale deed with regard to plot measuring 121.1/2 sq. yards bounded on the East: Road 15', West: Plot No.16 15', North: Surinder Pal Kaur 173' and South: Plot no.4 73' out of the aforesaid Khasra numbers executed defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 vide registered sale deed bearing wasika No.3424 dated 25.06.2015 and Sale deed with regard to plot measuring 121.1/2 sq. yards, bounded on:
East: Road, 15'
West: Plot No.16, 15'
North: Veena Rani Kalra 73'
South: Sukhjit Singh 73'
out of the above detailed Khasra numbers executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant no.3 vide registered sale deed bearing wasika No.3425 dated 25.06.2015.
13.That the plaintiff applied for certified copies of the sale deeds on 23.01.2019 and the same have been supplied to him on 05.02.2019. From the date of knowledge, the present suit is within time. Prior to 23.01.2019, the plaintiff had no knowledge of any kind about the alleged sale deeds detailed above and the validity and legality of which have been challenged in the present suit. The plaintiff also obtained the copy of the mutation No.31533 on 1.3.2019."
!
## !
!
! !#
''4
!"!
10# ""
#
% !
4@' ##
!
"
!
!
1
!
#+
"#
#
!
#
# ? !
"!#
#
#
!
# ""
""
!##+
1
=!
!
$/0123$,0$3$,/0 893$# #"#
#
!
6"
'3'4@
# ""
! #
'' #
!
!
#
''
6"
'3'4@ " #+
# ""
#+
''
!#
# ""
!
6"
#+ ''2''
=!
) "Considering the averments in the plaint, it can be seen that, as such, the plaintiff has specifically admitted that the plaintiff and his brother executed the gift deed on 06.03.1981. It is admitted that the gift deed is a registered gift deed. It also emerges from the plaint that till 2003, neither the plaintiff nor his brother (during his
lifetime) challenged the gift deed dated 06.03.1981 nor, at any point of time, claimed that the gift deed dated 06.03.1981 was a showy deed of gift. In fact, it is the defendant− appellant herein who instituted the suit in the year 2001 against his brothers to which even the plaintiff was a party as defendant No. 10 and that was a partition suit filed by the appellant herein original defendant. It appears that the summon and the copy of the plaint ) T.S. (Partition) Suit No. 203 of 2001 was served upon the plaintiff in the year 2001 itself. Still, the plaintiff averred in the plaint that it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff with respect to the gift deed on 10.04.2003. Thus, it is born out from the averments in the plaint that, till 2003, the plaintiff never disputed the gift deed and/or never claimed that the gift deed dated 06.03.1981 was a showy deed of gift. With the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the application submitted by the appellant−original defendant to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC is required to be considered."
"!
!! !
!
"
+ #+ +
+ !
#
/
!! #+
+
!
=
! "$3&0 (.
" ,, # 6 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes