KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having lost before both the Courts below, defendant No. 2 has come up in second appeal. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land and the decree dated 20.1.1990 passed in Civil Suit No. 176 of 1988 titled as Faqir Chand v. Shamo Devi and Ors. by the Court of Sh. R.K. Sondhi, the then Sub Judge, Bhiwani and consent decree dated 10.11.1990 suffered by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 2-A and 2-B in Civil Suit No. 1274 of 1990 passed by the Court of Shri B.K. Aggarwal, the then Senior Sub Judge Bhiwani and the registered sale deed dated 13.9.1991 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 2-C are illegal, null and void and not binding upon their rights. It is alleged by plaintiffs that defendant No. 2, in connivance with defendant No. 1, who happened to be the General Power of Attorney of the plaintiffs obtained a consent decree dated 20.1.1990 on the basis of which mutation No. 5119 was also got sanctioned though the said Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 was already got cancelled by the plaintiffs by their notice dated 1.12.1987 and as there was no family settlement between the parties, therefore, the said unregistered decree, pertaining to the subject matter of the value of more than Rs. 100/- is of no consequence and all the transactions thereafter carried out by defendant No. 2 by suffering another decree on 10.11.1990 in favour of defendants No. 2-A and 2-B and the sale deed dated 13.9.1991 in favour of defendant No. 2-C are illegal. They also prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from further alienating the suit land and also dispossessing them forcibly. Defendants Nol and 2 filed a joint written statement. It was alleged that defendant No. 1, who was the General Power of Attorney of the plaintiffs has suffered a consent decree in favour of defendant No. 2 on the basis of a family settlement. Defendant No. 2, after having become rightful owner further transferred the suit land to defendants No. 2-A and 2-B by virtue of Civil Court decree dated 10.11.1990 and has also sold the part of the suit land to defendant No. 2-C on 13.9.1991. It is further alleged by defendant No. 2 that Kala son of Lekhu Mal was his real uncle. His father Parbhu Diyal had died three months before his birth and he was brought up and looked after by his uncle Kala, who had four daughters but no son. He had adopted a son of his sister but unfortunately the adopted son died and his uncle Kala brought him up as his own son. His uncle Kala died in Pakistan before partition in the year 1944. His daughters did not succeed to the estate of their father as per the law at that time but the estate of Kala was mutated in favour of his widow Lakshami Bai, who too had died in the riots during partition in the year 1947. It is alleged that he had filed a claim before the rehabilitation authorities and was allotted land at village Sui Tehsil Bawani Khera. The said allotment, however, later on was cancelled. Then the matter was taken up with the Rehabilitation Department, Jal-landhar for allotment of land. The Daughters of Lakshami Bai were allowed eight standard acres and thirteen units of land at Villages Tosham, Dang Kalan and Dinod. It is further alleged that as he has been litigating on behalf of the daughters of Lakshami Bai, he asked them to pay Rs. 12,000/- along with interest but to no avail. It is alleged by defendant No. 2 that his aunt died in the year 1987 and after that a compromise was arrived at between him and plaintiffs with mediation of defendant No. 1 on the basis of which the suit property has been transferred by way of a consent decree passed in Civil Suit No. 176 of 1988 titled as Faqir Chand v. Shamo Devi and Ors. on 20.1.1990.

(2.) Defendants No. 2-A and 2-B did not appear despite service, however, trial Court appointed a Court Guardian on their behalf. He filed the written statement on behalf of defendants No. 2-A and 2-B alleging that the decree suffered by defendant No. 2 in their favour is valid and binding upon the plaintiffs.

(3.) Defendants No. 2-C did not appear, therefore, he was proceeded against ex parte.