JAGDISH Vs. RAM KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs having remained concurrently unsuccessful in the two Courts below have filed the present regular second appeal.

(2.) A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) to the effect that they are owners in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share in addition to their own share in the land in dispute and that the decree dated January 21, 1983 suffered by Basti Ram in favour of defendant-respondent Ram Karan (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) was illegal, bad and had no effect upon their rights.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants reiterating the validity of the aforesaid decree. The plea with regard to property being ancestral was denied. It was pleaded by the defendants that in fact Basti Ram was living jointly with Ram Karan and was a disabled person. He was being looked after by Ram Karan and his family. In these circumstances, it was stated that the aforesaid decree was suffered voluntarily by Basti Ram in favour of Ram Karan.