BALRAJ SHARMA Vs. SHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legal representatives of Vidya-original Defendant No. 4 have filed the instant second appeal.

(2.) Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff Shanti filed suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The Plaintiff claimed that she is owner in possession of one-third share of the suit land and that decree dated 17.07.1987 in Civil Suit No. 393 of 1987 is null and void and in the alternative, the Plaintiff claimed joint possession of the suit land. The Plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction restraining Defendants No. 1 and 2 from alienating the suit land.

(3.) Plaintiff is widow of Suraj Bhan-pre-deceased son of Babu Ram. Defendants No. 1 to 5 are sons and daughters of Babu Ram, whereas Defendant No. 6 is daughter of Plaintiff and her deceased husband Suraj Bhan. The Plaintiff claimed that her husband Suraj Bhan had one-third share in the suit land, which has been inherited the Plaintiff. However, Defendants No. 1 and 2 obtained decree dated 17:07.1987 against Babu Ram. The suit land, being ancestral coparcenary property, could not be transferred by way of consent decree by Babu Ram in favour of Defendants No. 1 and 2.