HARDWAI & OTHERS Vs. MUKHRAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the defendants who are aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by Mukh Ram-plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit claiming that he was owner in possession of the land measuring 7 kanals 1 marla titled in the plaint falling in the revenue estate of Mamadia Ahir, Tehsil & District Rewari as per the jamabandi for the year 1988-89. The case of the plaintiff was that he had two daughters and he was an innocent and uneducated agriculturist and the defendants, taking advantage of his illiteracy, had filed a civil suit No.288 dated 20.04.1993 titled Sher Singh etc. Vs. Mukh Ram regarding the suit property by way of misrepresentation and fraud on the ground that the decree was going to be passed in favour of his two daughters, and accordingly, the decree was passed in civil suit on 04.09.1993 and on the basis of the same, mutation No.411 was got sanctioned. It was further pleaded that the defendants are not members of the joint Hindu family of the plaintiff nor they had any pre-existing rights in the suit property and the property was never delivered to the defendants and the defendants never cultivated the suit land. The decree not being registered, was required to be compulsorily registered, and therefore, on the ground of fraud, it was liable to be set aside. Initially, the defendants No.9,, 11 and 12 had been proceeded against ex parte and defendant No.10 had expired and the ex parte decree was set aside and defendants No.2, 3, 5 and 8 filed written statement. The plea taken in their written statement, apart from the preliminary objections and maintainability, were that suit being time barred, plaintiff had no locus standi and that the answering defendants were owners to the extent of half share as a family settlement had been arrived at in the year 1990 and defendants No.1 to 8 had become owners to the extent of half share and the remaining property came in the share of defendants No.9 to 12. The settlement was averred to have been arrived in favour of the plaintiff and both the daughters and it was admitted by the plaintiff that he would get the revenue record corrected and he himself engaged an Advocate and made a statement in the Court on his own basis and on his admission, the decree dated 04.09.1993 was passed. The allegations of misrepresentation and fraud were denied in view of the earlier family settlement in the presence of both the daughters as well as that the defendants had obtained a tubewell connection bearing No.BAG-433 and 554 and had spent Rs. 2 lacs on the property. The violation of the provisions of Registration Act was denied and it was alleged that they had even constructed a Samadhi of their father in the said property. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was having knowledge of the decree and the mutation and no objection had been raised by him and now, he had just made a concocted story.

(3.) On the basis of said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: