9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also regarding alienation of suit land, the doctrine of lis pendens will apply.' The doctrine of lis pendens is no substitute for the expressed order. In these circumstances, it is ordered that the parties shall maintain status quo regarding the possession over the disputed land till the disposal of suit. However, either party can adopt due course of law for correction of revenue entries or take possession. It is further ordered that any further alienation of the suit property can only be made by either party with the prior permission of the Court. The interest of justice requires that the case should be disposed of expeditiously, so that the plaintiffs are not benefitted by default i.e. on account of Surinder Kaur losing a battle for life during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, in consultation with the learned senior counsel for the parties, it was proposed that the case be made date bound - keeping in view the old age of defendant No. 1, the case shall be decided expeditiously. The plaintiffs shall be given 10 effective opportunities of one month duration each to conclude their evidence and similarly, the defendants shall also be given same number of opportunities of sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in West Pakistan). Their forefathers expired in Pakistan. Jagat Singh was succeeded by his three sons, namely, Sikandar Singh, Bhupinder Singh and Satwant Singh. In lieu of the said ancestral land left in Pakistan, they were allotted land in various villages of Punjab, namely, Bir Bahadurgarh, Nasirpur, Shekhpura Kamboan, Chuharpur Kamboan and Saifdipur, Tehsil and District Patiala and also in village Sultanwind, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Bhupinder Singh died unmarried and his property was inherited by Satwant Singh and Sikandar Singh in equal shares, which also became ancestral and coparcenary property. Sikandar Singh got married to Surinder Kaur (defendant No. 1). Defendant No. 1 being the active member in the family took the control of the entire properties and decided to manage the same in her own way and for same reason, she prevailed upon her husband Sikandar Singh and his brother Satwant Singh. Satwant Singh transferred his land in the name of Basant Kaur through transfer deed No. 202, dated 21.3.1958. Sikandar Singh transferred his land in favour of defendant No. 1, vide transfer deed No. 203 dated 26.2.1958. Sikandar Singh again transferred the land in favour of Kartar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. She has been prevailed upon by her two daughters, who had already been given by adoption. Rajeevinder Singh @ Pawandeep Singh expired in 2011 as he was suffering from cancer, leaving behind the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 4 is a doctor by profession and she is taking care of her minor children. Defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs by interfering in the disputed property. 4. In the written statement, the stand of the defendants is that the disputed property is not joint Hindu ancestral/coparcenary property. It was stated that in the suit, no details of Wills and gift deeds, transfer deeds, civil court decree and mutation have been given. The wills, transfer deeds and gift deeds, mentioned in the plaint, were asserted to be correct. It is stated that the present suit has been filed only as a counter blast to the criminal writ petition filed before this Court, wherein Surinder Kaur was ordered to be given protection in the habeas corpus petition, filed by Manjinderpal Singh, husband of Selina. The possession of the plaintiffs over the property is also denied. The allegations were also levelled that one DIG Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Jalandhar Range, had confined defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onam Gift Deed 1970 5. Basant Kaur Rajiv, Poonam, Selina Will 1971 6. Parkash Kaur Surinder Kaur Will 1988 7. Sikandar Singh Surinder Kaur Will 1999 8. Surinder Kaur Selina Gift deed 1972 9. Dhaninder Kaur Poonam, Selina Will 1979 10. CS Verma YK Dhawan Will 10. The plaintiffs claim that the suit property was ancestral. Admittedly, Rajeev Inder Singh @ Pawandeep Singh, predecessorin-interest of the plaintiffs died in the year 2011. During his life time, he did not challenge these transactions. However, it is claimed that the plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 are minors and that they have got their independent right to challenge the same. It also comes out from the order of the appellate Court that an application for correction of khasra girdawari was moved by the plaintiffs and immediately before filing of the suit, khasra girdawaris qua the land of villages Bir Bahadurgarh and Nasirpur were corrected in favour of plaintiffs that too in absence of defendants by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and the same was upheld by the Collector, Sub Division, Patiala, on 16.7.2011, on the ground that the civil court has already passed the order of status quo. The land of the village Sultanwind is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Surinder Kaur is suffering from spinal tuberculosis and is 83 years of age. Therefore, the interest of justice requires that the case should be disposed of expeditiously, so that the plaintiffs are not benefitted by default i.e. on account of Surinder Kaur losing a battle for life during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, in consultation with the learned senior counsel for the parties, it was proposed that the case be made date bound. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs has stated at bar that he will conclude his evidence within 10 effective opportunities, which will be of one month duration each. For this purpose, he will obtain the summons dasti and produce the witnesses. Similarly, the learned senior counsel for the defendants/respondents has also stated at bar that he will also complete his evidence within maximum 10 effective opportunities of one month duration each. 14. Therefore, it is further ordered that keeping in view the old age of defendant No. 1, the case shall be decided expeditiously. The plaintiffs shall be given 10 effective opportunities of one month duration each to conclude their evidence and similarly, the defendants shall also be given same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
