Accordingly, the trial companyrt decreed the suit.
The finding recorded by the trial companyrt in this regard reads as follows No doubt Gulab Singh got some of his share in the property described in para number 1 a of the plaint through his father Budhu vide mutation number 3089 in which the father Budhu suffered a decree in favour of defendant number 1 along with Zile Singh and Ram Kumar of 3/4th share but in the year 1969 when the said decree was passed Gulab Singh was unmarried and he had got alienated the land which had companye to his share when Rohit Chauhan, Plaintiff came into existence i.e. on 25.3.1982.
It is further allegation of the plaintiff that his father illegally gifted 96 Kanals of land in favour of defendant number 1 Surinder Singh, the son of his real brother Zile Singh by way of release deed dated 28th of May, 2004.
The trial companyrt, on analysis of the materials placed on record and the legal position, came to the companyclusion that the property which defendant number 2 got by virtue of the partition decree amongst his father and brothers was although separate property qua other relations but it attained the characteristics of companyarcenary property after the plaintiff Rohit Chauhan was born.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the property received by his father is ancestral property and, therefore, alienation of the same by him is null and void.
Meaning thereby that the property which Gulab Singh had got by the decree was although his separate property qua other relation but became JHF property immediately when Rohit Chauhan was born thereby getting characteristic of companyarcenary property.
Defendant number.
They were number even on talking terms.
In other words, according to defendant number 1, after partition the property falling in the share of defendant number 2 lost its character as a companyarcenary property and assumed the status of self acquired property.
But later on, Gulab Singh was married to defendant number 7, Rajesh Rani and from the wedlock the plaintiff as also defendant number 6 were born.
3 to 5.
Gulab Singh, father of the plaintiff, has been arrayed as defendant number 2, whereas son of Zile Singh i.e. Surinder Singh figures as defendant number 1 in the suit.
2 and there was numbergood relation between them.
After the death of Budhu, defendant number 2 inherited 1/3 share i.e., 6 Kanals and in this way plaintiffs father Gulab Singh, defendant number 2,got 96 Kanals of land.
Defendant No.2 during his lifetime also acquired 8 Kanals of land from the income of the properties which he got in partition amongst his father and brothers.
3 to 5 filed their separate written statements and supported the plea of defendant number 1 and averred that the sale deeds and the release deed were validly executed.
At the time of partition defendant number 2 was unmarried.
Plaintiff alleged that his father defendant number 2 executed two separate sale deeds on 19th of May, 2000 selling 8 Kanals of land acquired from joint family funds to defendant number.
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff prayed for declaration that the release deed, sale deeds and the mutation entries made on that basis are illegal, null and void and number binding on him, Varsha defendant number 6 and Rajesh Rani defendant number 7 .
Plaintiff, aggrieved by the same, preferred second appeal and the High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine and, while doing so, observed as follows Finding of the lower appellate companyrt that the suit land is number proved to be ancestral or companyarcenary property is fully justified by the documentary evidence and admitted facts.
On the basis of the release deed and the sale deeds, the defendants claiming interest therein got their names mutated and attested in the revenue records.
Defendant number 1 companytested the suit and, according to him, the plaintiff, his mother Rajesh Rani and minor sister Varsha were living separately from defendant No.
Defendant number 2 supported the case of defendant number 1 and adopted the written statement filed by him.
According to defendant number 1, he and his family members were rendering service and giving honour to defendant number 2 and he was residing with them as their family member.
Plaintiff was born on 25th of March, 1982.
On the basis of the aforesaid pleading of the parties various issues have been framed including the following issues Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration to the effect that impugned release deed dt.28.5.2004 and mutation number3365 entered and attested in lieu of impugned release deed and further two sale deeds dt.19.5.2000 bearing number272/1 and 273/1 and mutation number3110 and 3106 entered and attested on the basis of impugned two sale deeds and further revenue entries are wrong, illegal and number binding on the rights of the plaintiff and defendants number 6 7?
In partition between Budhu and his three sons, defendant number 2 got 1/4 share i.e., 72 Kanals of land.
Defendant number 1 further averred that out of love, affection and service rendered by him, defendant number 2 was pleased and, as such, he executed a release deed in his favour and on that basis mutation entries were made.
His grandfather Budhu had three sons, namely, Gulab Singh, Zile Singh and one Ram Kumar.
In the said partition Budhu also got 72 Kanals of land and he bequeathed 1/4 of his share i.e., 18 Kanals to each of his three sons and kept with himself 18 Kanals.
PRASAD,J. Sole plaintiff Rohit Chauhan is the appellant before us.
Defendant number 1, aggrieved by the same, preferred appeal and it was his plea that the property received by defendant 2 on partition will become his separate property and requires to be treated as his self acquired property and, therefore, defendant number 2 was free to deal with the property in the manner he liked.
