MANGAT Vs. MANGE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-Appellant against the order dated 29-9-1978 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the three defendants-respondent for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 8-5-1972 passed in suit No. 624 of 1972 (Mange Ram & ors. Vs. Mangat) was void on the ground that it has been obtained as a result of fraud played upon the plaintiff by the defendants with the consequential relief of possession of agricultural land measuring 150 Kanals 18 Marlas. It is alleged in the plaint that in the year 1972, the defendants proposed to the plaintiff that the latter should execute a will in respect of his property in favour of the defendants so that the married daughter of the plaintiff should not be able to claim her right in the suit land and the plaintiff agreed to the request of the defendants. It is further alleged that on this representation, defendant-respondent No. 1 brought the plaintiff-appellant to Panipat in the Court on 8.5.1972 and contained a false decree dated 8.5.1972. It was submitted by the plaintiff-appellant that the said judgment and decree was void because it was void because it was obtained by defendant-respondent No. 1 by playing fraud on the plaintiff, and on the representation that he was executing a will, the thumb-impression of the plaintiff were obtained at one or two places; that there was no family arrangement, as alleged by the defendants in that suit and the plaintiff never admitted the claim of the defendants in the earlier suit; that even no summonses were issued in that suit; that when mutation was sanctioned in favour of the defendants on 12.5.1975 on the basis of the said decree, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly; that the plaintiff then approached the Patwari and came to know that a false decree had been obtained by the defendants in their favour by playing fraud on the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff requested the defendants to admit his claim and hand over the possession of the suit land to him but the defendants did not oblige, which necessitated the filing of the present suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted by defendant-respondent No.l, while the remaining defendants-respondents admitted the claim of the plaintiff-appellant in to to. Defendant-respondent No. 1 in his written statement stated that he never proposed to the plaintiff to execute a will in respect of his property in favour of the defendants. On the other hand, it was stated by defendant-respondent No. 1 that the defendants filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit land as a result of family arrangement and the plaintiff, who was defendant in the earlier suit, admitted the claim of the defendants who were plaintiffs in that suit and the defendants stated that the decree passed against the plaintiff was not void and was binding upon him. Defendant-respondent No. 1 denied that any fraud was played on the plaintiff by him.