DHANNO Vs. RADHEY SHYAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tersenessly, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, are that Smt.Dhanno daughter of Ram Singh appellant-plaintiff (for brevity "the plaintiff") filed the suit against Radhey Shyam and others respondent-defendants (for short "the defendants") seeking a decree for possession by way of preferential right to acquire the share of defendant Nos.2 to 6 under section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), inter-alia pleading that Ram Singh son of Risala was the owner and in possession of agricultural land in dispute, situated within the area of village Machhroli, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat. After death, his widow Rukmani, daughters Chandro, Dhanno, Shanti, Premo & Santosh and sons Hawa Singh, Balbir Singh & Jagira inherited the property in question in natural succession. Defendant Nos.2 to 11 were stated to have entered into an agreement dated 28.1.1990 to sell the land measuring 24 kanals 0 marla, being 480/622th share out of land measuring 31 kanals 2 marlas in dispute with defendant No.1. The suit to enforce the agreement to sell filed by defendant No.1 was partly decreed by the trial Court, by means of judgment and decree dated 18.8.1999 (Ex.D6 and Ex.D7) respectively, wherein minor defendant Nos.2 to 5 were held to be not bound by the agreement on account of their minority. It is not a matter of dispute that the decree has already attained the finality.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed that since she is successor and co-owner of the property with the defendants, so, she has a preferential right to acquire the disputed property. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of possession against the defendants in the manner indicated hereinbefore.

(3.) Although defendant Nos.2 to 11 filed their written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff, however, defendant No.1 contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter-alia raising certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the suit, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. According to the contesting defendant that plaintiff is not daughter of Ram Singh, rather she is an imposter. Since she alongwith her sisters had transferred the suit land in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4, vide civil court decree, so, she is no more a co-sharer and has left with no interest in the property in dispute. The factum of decree passed in civil suit for a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell and attaining its finality was admitted. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.