DEVI LAL Vs. SHOKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Devi Lal-Plaintiff who was successful in the trial court but has been non-suited in the lower appellate court is in second appeal.

(2.) The Plaintiff alleged that he is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 20 Kanals 2 Marias and 10 Kanals 5 Marias. The Plaintiff never relinquished his rights in the suit land in favour of Defendants or anybody else. But the Defendants have obtained judgment and decree dated 02.12.1993 from Sub-Judge First Class, Abohar in Suit No. 1015-1 dated 24.07.1993 titled as Sho Karan and Anr. v. Devi Lal qua the suit land and got mutation No. 927 sanctioned on the basis thereof without consent and knowledge of the Plaintiff. In the instant suit, the Plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid consent judgment and decree dated 02.12.1993 and the consequent mutation No. 927 alleging the same to be illegal and null and void. The Plaintiff sought declaration that he continues to be owner in possession of the suit land. The judgment and decree in question are said to have been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and impersonation. Plaintiff herein (who was Defendant in the previous suit) alleged that he never appeared in the previous suit nor admitted the claim of Defendants herein (who were Plaintiffs in the previous suit). Plaintiff also sought consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner to anybody and from interfering in the enjoyment of rights of Plaintiff qua suit land.

(3.) Defendants while broadly controverting the plaint allegations, inter alia pleaded that the Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land but has not claimed the relief of possession thereof and therefore, suit for declaration only is not maintainable. The suit is also barred by limitation. On the basis of family settlement dated 06.07.1991, Defendants are owners in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff herein who was Defendant in the previous suit admitted the claim of the Defendants herein (Plaintiffs in the previous suit) by filing written statement dated 26.10.1993 and also by making statement to the same effect in the court on the same date in Civil Suit No. 1015-1 dated 24.07.1993. Plaintiff herein himself appeared in the said previous suit and made the said statement in the court. Judgment and decree dated 02.12.1993 and the consequent mutation are legal and valid. All grounds pleaded by the Plaintiff to challenge the same have been controverted. Various other pleas were also raised.