RAJINDER Vs. MANI RAM AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal by Rajinder defendnat No. 1.

(2.) Suit was filed by respondents No. 1, 2, 5 and 6 against Rajinder appellant as defendant No. 1 and against respondents No. 3 and 4 impleading them as proforma defendants No2 and 3. The plaintiffs alleged that they along with proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 are owners in possession of 40 kanals land in suit and defendant No. 1 has no concern therewith. Decree passed in Civil Suit No. 512 dated 07.01.1994 in favour of defendant No. 1 against one Birbal was also challenged in the suit, along with consequent mutation based on the said decree.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 contested the suit and alleged that decree passed in Suit No. 512 dated 07.01.1994 is legal and valid and revenue entries in favour of plaintiffs and proforma defendants are wrong. Defendant No. 1 also alleged that decree dated 10.05.1996 was passed in suit instituted by Raja Ram plaintiff No. 4, Banwari proforma defendant No. 2 and Vidya Devi against Rajender defendant No. 1 and against Mani Ram plaintiff No. 1 impleaded as proforma defendant No. 2 in the said suit No. 396 dated 08.10.1994. Vide judgment dated 10.05.1996 in said suit No. 396 of 1994, defendant No. 1 was declared to be owner in possession of 16 kanals 13 marlas land out of the total suit land measuring 40 kanals.