NAWAL SINGH Vs. KAILASH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30th January, 2014. An appeal, which was thereafter preferred against the said decree, too failed and was dismissed on 13th December, 2016. It is in this background, the appellant-plaintiff is before this Court in Regular Second Appeal (RSA). Parties to the Us, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit praying for a decree for permanent injunction with respect to the suit property described as Khewat No. 93/82, Khatoni No.100, Mustil No.9, Killa No.l3/2(l-ll), 17/2(6-4), Mustil No.18, Killa No.5 (10-13), Mustil No.6, Killa No. 11 (8-13), Mustil No.30, Killa No. 17(3-0), 18(7-8), Mustil No.45, Killa No. 10(8-0), Mustil No.46, Killa No. 15(8-0), 16(7-18), Khasra No.345(0-3), gair mumkin garha khad, Kitta 10 total measuring 56 Kanal 10 Maria and Khewat No.206/183, Khatoni No.244, Mustil No.6, Killa No.20/2(5-3), Mustil No.7, Killa No.l5/2(2-10),16(8-0), 25/1(7-0), 25/2(1-0), 17/1(4-8), 24/2(2-0), Mustil No.9, Killa No.l4(6-19), 18/1(2-11), Mustil No.18, Killa No.5/2(7-7), 6/1(3-16), Mustil No.30, Killa No.l9(5-2), 23/1(3-14) Mustil No.45, Killa No.l(8-0), Mustil No.46, Killa No.5(l-8), 6(7-15), 14(7-4), 17(6-8), Kitta 19 total measuring 94 Kanal 14 Maria, situated at village Siwana Mauja Musepur, Tehsil and District Rewari.

(3.) In brief, the case as set out by the plaintiff was that his father Tula Ram, was owner in possession of the suit land, which was ancestral and a coparcenary property and as such, he claimed Vi share in the land by birth. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that mutation No. 643, dated 23rd March, 1999, wherein, all the legal heirs of Tula Ram {wife - respondent No.3 in civil suit, three daughters - respondents No.1, 2 and 4 in civil suit and a son i.e. the plaintiff} shown to have inherited equal shares, was sanctioned illegally and in a secretive manner, whereby, land belonging to Tula Ram was mutated on 23.03.1999 in their favour, whereas, in fact, they were entitled to 2/5th share. It was also pleaded that defendant No.1 i.e. Smt. Kailash, daughter of Tula Ram, without as much as having any right or title in the suit property had executed a sale-deed No. 5073, dated 06.10.2016 in favour of defendants No.5 to 7 (i.e. Chandrawati, Anita and Neelam Chandna) qua which mutation No.838 was got sanctioned, which on the face of it was illegal, null and void and deserved to be set-aside, as defendant No.1 had only l/10th share in the suit property. It was further averred that in June, 2006, when it came to the notice of the plaintiff about the disputed mutation No. 643, dated 23.03.1999, he preferred the civil suit before the trial Court. During the pendency of the said civil suit, an application for amendment of the plaint was moved on 19th July, 2010 by the plaintiff, wherein, he claimed that by way of a consent decree dated 26th April, 1972, he had become the owner in possession of 63 Kanal 4 Maria of land, which was part of the suit property. He also averred that through sale-deed No. 5673, dated 06th October, 2006 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.5 to 7, she had sold more than her l/10th share. As his repeated requests to the defendants to get the said mutation No.643 set-aside failed, he was left with no choice, but to institute the civil suit before the trial Court, wherein, he sought relief of decree of declaration that the aforementioned mutations (mutation Nos. 643 and 838) and the sale-deed be declared null and void and he be given 3/5th share while restraining the defendants from interfering in his share.