MURTI Vs. JAI RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Murti-plaintiff No. 5, who is also one of the legal heirs of her mother Smt. Ramo plaintiff No. 1 since deceased, has filed the instant second appeal.

(2.) Suit was filed by Smt. Ramo and her four daughters, Vidya, Basanti, Ram Pyari and Murti against Jai Ram-respondent No. 1-defendant. Smt. Ramo was mother of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 as well as of the defendant. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 5 are sisters of defendant. Their father Mawasi was owner in possession of 11 kanals 3 marlas land. On his death, it was inherited by his 9 heirs i.e. five plaintiffs, one defendant and two more sons and a daughter of Mawasi in equal shares i.e. l/9th share each. The plaintiffs thus claimed 5/9th share in the said land i.e. to the extent of 6 kanals 4 marlas. In the instant suit, they challenged consent judgment and decree dated 10.05.199S suffered by them in favour of defendant herein in suit No. 266 of 1995 alleging that the said judgment and decree were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and are null and void. It was pleaded that plaintiffs were brought to the Magistrate on the pretext of obtaining their power of attorney for claiming compensation for the suit land which was being acquired by State of Haryana.

(3.) Defendant broadly controverted the plaint allegations, while admitting the relationship between the parties. The defendant alleged that in view of family settlement, he became owner in possession of the suit land and consent decree dated 10.05.1995 was suffered voluntarily by the plaintiffs and is not result of fraud and misrepresentation etc. All averments to challenge the same were controverted by the defendant. Various other pleas were also raised.