KAMLESH AND OTHERS Vs. RAM AVTAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below dismissing their suit for declaration to the effect that they were having pre existing right being heirs on the basis of family settlement and were owners in possession of suit land as detailed in the head note of the suit, in equal share; the property being ancestral and they being legal heirs of defendant No.1, the other defendants have no connection/right whatsoever over the suit property and the entries regarding ownership in the revenue record were liable to be corrected in their favour and the sale deed dated 21.5.2002 and the mutation sanctioned on 15.2.2007 on the basis of the above said sale deed in favour of the defendants being illegal were liable to be set aside and had no effect on the rights of the appellants, with consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from taking illegal possession of the suit land or causing any damage to the crops cultivated by them as owners over the suit land and from alienating the same in any manner.

(2.) Brief facts as pleaded by the appellants are that they are son and daughters of respondents No.1 and were owners in possession in equal share of the suit land on the basis of a family settlement. It was further alleged that they were having pre-existing right in the suit land being coparceners. Defendant No.1 was a man of bad habits and because of that he used to sell the ancestral property without any legal or domestic necessity and had sold away ancestral land situated at village Kudhal as detailed in the plaint. He refused to give maintenance allowance and neglected the plaintiffs completely. A family settlement took place and it was decided that the plaintiffs will be owners in possession of equal share of suit land measuring 57 kanals and 16 marlas being the coparceners. It was further alleged that defendant-respondent No.1 handed over the ownership and possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs in equal share at the spot and took the responsibility of getting the land transferred in the name of the plaintiffs in the revenue record. Thus, on the basis of family settlement and having birth right, the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land.

(3.) It was further alleged that defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell the land measuring 16 kanals compromised in Khasra Nos. 198//13(8-0), 18(8-0) with defendants No.2 and 3 after taking nominal amount for his bad habits of drinking without disclosing anything to the plaintiffs and executed the sale deed No.548 dated 21.5.2002 in their favour without any right and legal necessity. Defendants No.2 and 3 in connivance with the revenue staff and without disclosing anything to the plaintiffs secretly got mutation entered and sanctioned on 15.7.2002 in their names. Certain other allegations were levelled regarding the price of the land and non receipt of any sale price alleging that defendant-respondent No.1 had no right of ownership or possession and he was not the absolute owner of the land because as per the family settlement he had already given the suit land to the plaintiffs. The defendant-respondents were asked to admit the claim of the plaintiffs but they refused to do so. Hence, the present suit.