VIRENDER Vs. KAMDHENU AGRO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-plaintiff has filed this appeal being aggrieved of judgments and decrees dtd. 10/1/2019 and 12/2/2021, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ganaur and learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, respectively.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land to the extent of 1/5th share out of the land inherited by him alongwith his family members from his father. He also sought a decree for possession of 1/5th share of the land received by him with family out of the suit land inherited from his father. It is averred that the plaintiff received 1/5th share out of the suit property through inheritance from his father and in the year 2004, plaintiff's mother, brother namely Surender Kumar and sister Pooja sold their share to defendant no.1. Thereafter, on 21/12/2004 plaintiff's brother Surender Kumar and sister Poonam sold their share to defendant no.1. Poonam sold her share through her mother as her attorney. Mutation of the sale deeds, it is stated, was wrongly entered, reflecting the plaintiff to be the vendor of the said sale deed and plaintiff's name Vijender was mentioned in mutation no.4782 and ownership of the land is reflected to be transferred in favour of defendant no.1, illegally on the basis of sale deed no.2949 dtd. 21/12/2004. It is averred that the plaintiff in fact never sold his share to any person including defendant no.1. Plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of his share as received from his father and co-owner in possession with defendant no.1. It is further averred that entries of ownership and possession have been wrongly entered in the name of defendant no.1 in the Jamabandi for the years 2008-2009 and 2014-2015 and they have been wrongly transferred in the name of defendant no.1 by defendants no.2 and 3 in collusion with each other. Plaintiff is stated to have requested the official defendants to change the revenue record in respect to 1/5th of the property and hand over joint possession but to no avail, therefore, the suit was filed.

(3.) None appeared on behalf of defendant no.1 and it was proceeded ex-parte on 8/11/2016. Written statement was filed by defendants no.2 to 5, taking various preliminary objections including that of concealment of material facts. It is stated that version of the plaintiff was required to be verified and in case it is correct, at best it is a clerical error and can be rectified. The plaintiff, it is stated had never approached the official respondents. Dismissal of the suit was sought.