SURJIT SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the defendants in the original suit, challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.5.2008, passed by the lower Appellate Court, whereby, while reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.2.2006, passed by the trial Court, the suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein), has been ordered to be decreed.

(2.) For the convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants, as they were mentioned in the original suit.

(3.) The facts in brief, as involved in the case are, that the plaintiff had filed a suit challenging the decree dated 18.5.1972, passed in Civil Suit No. 1011 of 1972, regarding the land measuring 223 kanals 17 marlas, for declaring the same as null, void, non-est and not binding on the proprietary and possessory rights of the plaintiffs. The basis for challenging the decree was that the father of the plaintiff, namely; Tulsi Ram son of Jee Ram was the Karta of Joint Hindu Family, having 244 kanals 18 marls of land, which was ancestral property of Joint Hindu Family; consisting of the plaintiff and his father. Besides this land, the family of the plaintiff was also having share in the land recorded in the revenue record as comprised in Khewat Jumla Malkan. The partition of this land owned by proprietary body was effected through the order of the Assistant Collector First Grade, Kaithal dated 29.7.1967. In this partition, the father of the plaintiff, as Karta of Joint Hindu Family, had also got 223 kanals 17 marls (the suit land), as the share of the family of the plaintiff from the land of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan on pro rata basis, as per the contribution made by their forefathers earlier. However, the defendants obtained the above said decree dated 18.5.1972, qua this land of 223 kanals 17 marlas fraudulently from the father of the plaintiff. Hence, the land which should have come to the plaintiff, has wrongly been taken over by the defendants through fraudulent impugned decree. It was further pleaded that since the defendants were not members of the family and despite that they were getting the land through decree of the Court, therefore, the impugned decree required registration. However, the said decree was not got registered. Hence, the decree had no value in the eyes of law qua the title of the land.