MEHTAB Vs. THANDU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present regular second appeal, the appellant-defendant No.3 is aggrieved against the judgment of reversal passed by the District Judge, Narnaul dated 23.06.2020, wherein the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff, the deceased respondent was decreed. Resultantly, directions were issued to the revenue authorities to enter the name of the deceased plaintiff Thandu Ram in the revenue record by making correction in the jamabandi for the year 1963-1964 till his death in the year 2013 and proceed further as per law. The issue of inheritance of the suit land by the applicants, on the basis of the Will was left open, giving them opportunity to approach the revenue authority and also giving them opportunity to file a separate suit in this regard.

(2.) A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the deceased plaintiff had filed a suit against his brothers on the ground that he was owner of 1/6th share out of 42 kanal 19 marlas of land situated in village Chhitroli, as per jamabandi for the year 2003-2004. The case of the plaintiff was that vide sale deed No.173 dated 28.06.1961, he had come in possession of 1/6th share in village Uchhat as per jamabandi for the year 1954-1955. Mutation No.599 dated 11.05.1963 was also entered in his favour and the other defendants. However, at the time of consolidation while preparing jamabandi for the year 1963-1964, his name was left out alone. He had come to know about the mistake, since he was in need of a loan and he had gone for obtaining copy of the jamabandi and resultantly the suit was filed on 29.07.2006.

(3.) Upon notice, only defendants No.1 to 3 had appeared and defendant No.2 filed his written statement admitting the said facts and, thereafter defendants No.1 and 2 had been proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter, an application was filed for setting aside the ex parte order, which was allowed and on 22.09.2009 a statement had been made by counsel for defendants No.1 & 3 that written statement filed on behalf of defendants No.1 & 2 be also read on his behalf. The compromise (Ex.CX) was also placed on record, whereby statement of defendants No.1 & 2 was also recorded and, thereafter, they were proceeded against ex parte. Eventually, an application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed by defendant No.3 and the suit thereafter proceeded against him only, who is none else but one of the brothers of the plaintiff.