TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1761
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') and also for modifying the order dated 28.5.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which the partial relief was granted to them. 2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 (minors) alongwith their mother Simrat Kaur Randhawa have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in actual physical possession of the suit land, fully detailed in headnote of plaint, being sole surviving legal heirs of deceased Rajeev Inder Singh @ Pawandeep Singh over the disputed property situated at village Nasirpur, Bir Bahadurgarh, Tehsil and District Patiala and at village Sultanwind, District Amritsar. Further declaration was sought that the gift deeds, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Singh, vide registered adoption deeds dated 3.3.1972 and 7.2.1972. Surinder Kaur also got transferred some land through a civil court decree from Sikandar Singh on 30.8.1977 in her favour. The said property was coparcenary and ancestral property and Sikandar Singh could not suffer the said decree as it is illegal. All the transfers were made by defendants No. 1 to 6 to the exclusion of the rights of Rajeev Inder Singh @ Pawandeep Singh. It is further alleged that Surinder Kaur got prepared a forged and fabricated Will of Parkash Kaur. The plaintiff alongwith minor children is residing in a farm house known as Nasirpur Farm at Patiala. Plaintiffs claim that they are in possession of the disputed property. It is stated that defendant No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 Poonam and her husband Yogeshwar Krishan Dhawan (defendant No. 4) for refraining them from looking after the defendant No. 1 and their properties. 5. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed, which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, vide order dated 19.8.2014. 6. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the said order. The learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment dated 28.5.2015, modified the said order and directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the possession of the farm house known as Nasirpur at Patiala and that too except in due course of law. The remaining relief was declined. It was stated that the plaintiffs are not entitled t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. Basant Kaur Selina Gift Deed 1970 4. Basant Kaur Surinder Kaur Poonam 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. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....property. The learned senior counsel for the revisionists has argued that all these transfers were made in order to avoid the losing of the land due to the tenancy law and the Land Ceiling Act. Some transfers were made by Sikandar Singh in favour of his father-in-law and mother-in-law. Even Selina and Poonam were given in adoption to save the land. All these matters are to be examined during trial. Therefore, at this stage, no findings can be recorded nor the allegations and counter allegations can be controverted. The first appellate Court has declined the relief on the ground that 'regarding possession of agriculture land and also regarding alienation of suit land, the doctrine of lis pendens will apply.' 12. I am of the view tha....