SARDARA SINGH Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF had filed the suit for possession of the suit land. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Bishni was owner of the suit land which was now recorded in the name of defendant No.1. Partapa, husband of Bishni was the last male owner of the suit land. Bishni had died on 2.6.1988 without any child. PLAINTIFF being a cognate of Bishni was entitled to inherit the suit land after her death. Mother of the plaintiff-Munshi Devi had already died on 21.12.1980. Raj Kumar, defendant No.1 was not related to Bishni in any manner and had obtained the impugned decrees by way of fraud and misrepresentation. The said decrees were not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Bishni had executed a Will dated 25.4.1971 in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) DEFENDANT No.1 in his written statement averred that Bishni was the absolute owner of the suit property. She had not executed any Will in favour of the plaintiff. The answering defendant had become owner of the suit property on the basis of the decrees suffered by Bishni in his favour. Bishni had adopted the answering defendant as her son.

(3.) VIDE order dated 27.8.1999, following additional issue no.1- A was framed:- 1-A. Whether deceased Bishni executed will dated 25.4.71 in favour of plaintiff. If so, its effect?OPP However, vide order dated 25.1.2001, another additional issue no. 1-B was framed; 1-B. Whether judgment and decree dated 9.11.72 passed in civil suit no.84 titled Raj Kumar vs. Bishni, judgment and decree dated 17.2.79 passed in civil suit no.3 titled Raj Kumar vs. Bishni and judgment and decree dated 4.3.82 passed in Civil Suit no. 49 titled Raj Kumar Vs. Bishni were obtained by defendant no.1 by fraud and misrepresentation of facts and are illegal, null and void and liable to be cancelled?OPP