MAM CHAND Vs. SAHIB DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' Regular Second Appeal against whom the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession and permanent injunction in respect of the land in dispute has been decreed by both the courts below. The following facts may be noticed :- The suit of the plaintiff-respondents is that Ratti Ram, their father, tried to alienate his property, on which they (plaintiff-respondent) filed Civil Suit No. 697 of 1985 against him. In the said suit, a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 13.11.1985. According to the said compromise, Ratti Ram was given certain land. Thereafter Ratti Ram gave the land in dispute to the defendant-appellants by way of judgment and decree dated 5.12.1985. It has been stated that the said Ratti Ram had no right to suffer the decree in favour of the defendant-appellants qua the suit land and, therefore, the judgment and decree dated 5.12.1985 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff- respondents. The plaintiff-respondents who are the daughters of late Ratti Ram, claim 3/4th share out of 15 Marlas of land.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the defendant-appellants, they took preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form and that the same is false and frivolous and has been filed by concealing the true facts. On merits, it was admitted that a compromise, as alleged in the plaint, was arrived at between the parties in which Ratti Ram was given liberty to deal with 3 Acres, 1 Kanal and 15 Marlas of land along with a 'Bara' in any manner. It was stated that the defendant-appellants had been serving Ratti Ram during his life time and on that account, he (Ratti Ram) give the suit land along with other property to them by way of judgment and decree dated 5.12.1985. It has been further stated that mutation of the basis of the said decree has been sanctioned in favour of the defendants and that judgment and decree dated 5.12.1985 is legal and binding upon the parties.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant-appellants went in appeal before the lower appellate Court and the same was also dismissed. I have heard Mr. S.K. Pipat, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. K.K. Saini, on behalf of the respondents, and have gone through the records of the case.