TEK CHAND Vs. DHOOP DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Then plaintiff Dhoop Dass chella of Kishan Dass filed against then defendants Tek Chand and others in all numbering 8, a suit for possession of agricultural land in all measuring 413 Kanal 18 Marla duly detailed and described in the pleadings and also challenged the mutations in all numbering nine well enumerated in the judgment of the trial Court, claiming the same to be not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and deserves to be set aside and further with the prayer that the entries in the revenue record being null and void needs to be set aside as well. Further a prayer of restraining the defendants from alienating or creating further encumbrances upon the suit property was also sought.

(2.) The precise claim is based on contentions that one Kishan Dass chella of Chetan Dass was alleged to be the owner in possession of the suit land and who died during the lifetime of Chetan Dass and the present plaintiff Dhoop Dass happen to be the chella of Kishan Dass. It is alleged that after the death of Chetan Dass the suit land came in the hands of the plaintiffs submitting that at the time of death of Chetan Dass chella of Manohar Dass, he was blind and unable to carry on with any such activities. The allegations hover around that one Ranpat father of defendant No.1 Tek Chand was a mischievous and deceptive person being clever and cunning and took undue advantage of blindness and got mutation No.1807 sanctioned in his favour upon collusion with the revenue authorities on the basis of an alleged sale consideration of Rs.5,000.00 though no sale deed was ever executed in writing or registered by Chetan Dass above said. Upon the death of Ranpat father of defendant Tek Chand, mutation of inheritance bearing No.1997 was entered and unduly sanctioned and further claiming that judgment and decree passed in civil suit No.956 titled 'Smt. Sumitra vs. Tek Chand' decided on 1/1/1970 passed by the Court of then learned Sub Judge, Hisar in respect of this land measuring 164 Kanal 16 Marla was too illegal, null and void; and therefore, had laid challenge to the mutations sanctioned on the basis of such a void-ab-initio judgment and decree including one dtd. 3/12/1993 in suit bearing No.1029 of 1993 titled 'Mange Ram and others vs. Tek Chand' of the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Hisar in respect of agricultural land measuring 88 Kanal out of the suit land. The plaintiff has further challenged sale deed bearing No.4336 dtd. 4/10/2001 executed by Sumitra wife of Tek Chand i.e. defendant No.2 in favour of one Sumitra Devi wife of Jaibir Singh defendant No.3 stating that the same be also held to be illegal, null and void; and so is mutation No.1290 dtd. 5/3/2002 of the Court of Assistant Collector, Grade II, Hisar in respect of land measuring 60 Kanal 16 Marla out of the suit land. The plaintiff has further laid claim to an exchange deed bearing No.1197 dtd. 25/6/1979 in respect of 10 kanal 13 marla out of suit land and mutation No.172 dtd. 9/10/1984 sanctioned by Assistant Collector, Grade II, Hisar. The plaintiff has thus, sought setting aside of all these transactions being an outcome of fraud, illegal and contrary to the principles of law.

(3.) Defendants No.1 to 4 appeared and opposed the suit terming it to be barred by limitation, the plaintiff having no locus-standi or cause of action, the suit being estopped as well as non-maintainable. The primary claim of the defendant is that Ranpat Singh father of defendant No.1, purchased 135 Bigha 13 Biswa of land in the year 1950 from Chetan Dass Bairagi for a consideration of Rs.5,000.00 followed by delivery of possession regarding which mutation No.1807 dtd. 21/5/1950 was also sanctioned in favour of Ranpat Singh though admitted that Chetan Dass Bairagi died 1' months after sanction of the mutation. The defendants claim that appeal by Dhoop Dass before the revenue authorities was dismissed on 19/7/1965 by then Collector Hisar and which has attained finality, and upon the death of Ranpat Singh mutation of inheritance No.1997 dtd. 23/7/1955 was also sanctioned in favour of the defendants and claimed that being owners in possession they were enjoying fruits thereof since a long period of time.