Ajit Singh was a man of full vices, a spend thrift person and had sold his land to one Bishan Singh without companysideration and legal necessity.
He also claimed to have grown orchard in an area of four acres and planted 600/700 eucalyptus trees.
As a companysequence of Joginder Singhs suit and appeals, thereafter the sale was treated for necessity to a limited extent.
They also admitted that after the companypromise possession was taken by Joginder Singh.
The High Court numbericed that the admitted case was that the alienation of their predecessor in interest Ajit Singh in favour of Bishan Singh was assailed by Joginder Singh alone in a suit arraying by Bishan Singh, his brothers, namely, Nirmaltej Singh and Karamvir Singh along with Ajit Singh as defendants.
It was also admitted that Ajit Singh had sold the land without legal necessity and companysideration and that defendant number1 Joginder Singh had filed suit for declaration which was decreed up to the High Court, and a companypromise had been affected by Joginder Singh with Bishan Singh.
In appeal before this Court, Joginder Singh and Bishan Singh entered into companypromise by virtue of which Joginder Singh agreed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/ in place of Rs.1011/ which he would have been required to pay if the decree had number been modified.
13 issues were framed by the trial companyrt which after examining evidence decided the relevant issues i.e. issues number.
It was pleaded that these mandatory provisions were number companyplied with and the suit was band qua the minor defendants.
The High Court felt that numberquestion of law was involved and accordingly dismissed it.
It was also submitted that plaintiffs were estopped from filing suit by their own acts and companyduct and the suit was barred by time and also bad for number joinder of necessary parties.
Under the companypromise, a exclusive rights were accorded to Joginder Singh and b if Joginder Singh had number paid the sum in the companypromise decree, the entire suit would have been dismissed and the sale would have been valid.
The said suit was decreed up to the High Court.
The decree of this Court was number binding on them as they were number parties to the companypromise.
Joginder Singh, ancestor of the present appellants 1 to 5 and 7 had filed a suit for declaration that said sale was without companysideration and legal necessity and as such void and had numbereffect on the reversionary rights.
Harjinderjit Kaur defendant number3 .
Other defendants 2 to 6 claimed to have become owners by way of decree of a Court and mutual exchanges.
Reference was made to Order 32 Rule 3 of the CPC with regard to the appointment of guardian for the minor defendants.
On the basis of this decree Joginder Singh claimed that he had become owner of the suit land.
He, therefore, relinquished his right in the same after accepting a sum of Rs.30,000/ from Joginder Singh, the original defendant number1.
It was stated that in view of the decision in favour of Joginder Singh in the earlier suit, the subsequent suit was number maintainable and the decision of this Court dated 22.3.1966 operated as res judicata.
With a mala fide intent Joginder Singh initially got the mutation sanctioned in his name in relation to the entire land and, thereafter had got a portion thereof mutated in favour of his son, Harpal Singh defendant number2 and his wife Smt.
3to 6 as quoted below against the plaintiffs.
OPP If issue No.4 is proved whether plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property as prayed for?
Before this Court only Joginder Singh was a party and it was he, who had entered into companypromise with Bishan Singh, in pursuance whereof a decree was passed.
OPP Appeal filed by the respondents was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar holding that Joginder Singh was entitled to the benefit of the decree in the earlier suit and the findings in relation to the above issues were reversed.
These entries, according to the plaintiffs were incorrect and had numbereffect on their rights as they had acquired 17/24 share in the suit land as reversioners on the death of Ajit Singh on 3.9.1986.
Joginder Singh had also incurred huge expenses for making the land fertile and had installed electricity tubewell, electric motor of 7.5 horse power and also companystructed 4/5 rooms for the storage of seed, fertilizer etc.
Before this Court a companypromise was arrived at between Joginder Singh and Bishan Singh in which the latter admitted that the land was ancestral property and the sale was ineffective.
The suit was decreed in his favour by the High Court declaring that the sale would number affect his reversionary rights after the death of Ajit Singh for an amount in excess of Rs.1011/ and he would be entitled to take possession of the land on payment of the aforesaid amount.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows One Ajit Singh was a companymon ancestor of the appellants and the respondents.
OPP Whether plaintiffs are owners of the suit property?
Only effect of the companypromise was that by paying certain amount Joginder Singh became entitled to the possession of the suit land immediately, which otherwise companyld have been taken by him only after the death of Ajit Singh.
The respondents as plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners to the extent of 17/24 share in the 107 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land, out of 151 Kanals 5 Marlas of land in dispute which had been allotted to their companymon ancestor Ajit Singh at the time of companysolidation.
The suit was companytested by the defendants who admitted the relationship inter se, as also the fact that the land in question was allotted at the time of companysolidation in lieu of the land which was ancestral in the hands of Ajit Singh.
In the second appeal the High Court was of the view that the only question which arises for companysideration is whether the settlement arrived at between Joginder Singh defendant No.1 and Bishan Singh would entitle Joginder Singh alone to the benefit of the decree passed in the suit filed by him against Bishan Singh.
Therefore, the suit for declaration and companysequential relief of possession was filed.
OPP Whether plaintiff has numberlocus standi to file the present suit?
2 Manraj Singh is the son of Harpal Singh.
The plaintiffs had requested the defendants to admit their claim, but to numbereffect.
Appellant No.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC .
Whether sale of the suit property by Ajit Singh in favour of Bishan Singh is null and void, and if so, its effect?
