KALAWATI Vs. NAWAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/defendants have filed the appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7.8.2002 passed by the Court of III Additional District Judge Morena in Civil Suit No.44A of 2000 whereby, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of Bhumiswami rights and possession by holder of the disputed land and for seeking relief for cancellation of sale -deeds Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/9 dated 30.3.1996 executed by respondents / defendants no.1 to 6 in favour of respondents / defendants no.6a and 6b, declaring them null and void and further seeking relief of permanent injunction that the respondents/defendants be restrained from alienating the suit property to any other person was decreed. In this appeal, the respondent no.1 is referred to as "plaintiff" and the appellants as "defendants'.

(2.) THE admitted facts of the case are that plaintiff Nawab Singh and the deceased Rambhajan (husband of defendant no.1 Kalawati and father of defendants no.2 to 6) were real brothers and the land in dispute mentioned in para 3 of the impugned judgment is situated in Village Lahar, a part of which (hereinafter would be called as 'disputed land') was sold by defendants no.1 to 6 in favour of defendants no.6(a) Manoj Kumar and 6(b) Ramadevi vide registered sale deeds Ex.P/8 and P/9 dated 30.3.1996.

(3.) DENYING the plaint allegations, the defendants no.1 to 6 and 6 (a) and (b) filed joint written statements stating therein that the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff by deceased Rambhajan on 5.7.1976 was forged and fabricated as Rambhajan had already expired on 31.12.1975. Even deceased Rambhajan was having no right to sell the disputed land which is ancestral one in which, the defendants no.1 to 6 were having equal share and this land has been alienated by them in favour of defendants no.6a and 6b vide two registered sale deed dated 30.3.1996. Since the disputed land was mutated in the name of defendants no.1 to 6 in the year 1987 being legal heirs of deceased Rambhajan canceling the mutation in the name of plaintiff by returning the matter to the Tehsil and thereafter, mutation made in favour of plaintiff by the Tehsil was canceled by SDO accepting the appeal filed by the defendants. The sale deed alleged to be executed in favour of the plaintiff dated 5.7.1976 is forged and fabricated. The names of defendants no.1 to 6 are recorded in the revenue records and the plaintiff has no right in the disputed land. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief stated above, deserves to be rejected.