SHIV RAM Vs. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff Shiv Ram adopted son of Smt. Nandi has filed the present Regular Second Appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.5.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra, who dismissed the appeal of the appellant by affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.8.1995 passed by the trial Court which dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration as prayed for.

(2.) SHIV Ram plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against Parkash Lal, Sunil Kumar and Rakesh Kumar to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 18.7.1985 passed by the Court of Shri L.N. Mittal, the then Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra in Civil Suit No. 857 of 1985 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and the plaintiff continues to be in possession of the suit land. Parkash Lal died during the pendency of the suit and his L.Rs. were impleaded. During the pendency of the appeal before the first Appellate Court an application for amendment of plaint was filed by the plaintiff and the said application under Order 6 Rule 10 C.P.C. was allowed by the first Appellate Court on 15.10.1998 and the plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint and claim possession of the suit land.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants on the grounds of estoppel, limitation, cause of action, valuation, locus-standi, bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. It has further been pleaded by the defendants that even after passing of the impugned decree, the plaintiff again mortgaged with possession two acres of land comprised in Rect. No. 49, Khasra Nos. 8 and 9 for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- vide mortgage deed dated 15.7.1987. This land was already mortgaged with the defendants as mentioned in para No. 4 of the plaint. After redemption of the land vide impugned decree plaintiff again mortgaged the same. After the passing of the impugned decree, plaintiff again got a decree of two kanals passed in favour of the answering defendants on 19.3.1986. The plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court. He was never in possession of the suit land. The defendants were in possession of the suit land at the time of passing of impugned judgment and decree. The decree dated 18.7.1985 is good.