VISHWA NATH Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal by plaintiff Vishwa Nath who has been non-suited by both the courts below.

(2.) Suit house was admittedly owned by Panna Lal father of appellant and respondent. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that on the death of Panna Lal, suit house was inherited in equal shares by plaintiff and both defendants in equal shares. Accordingly, plaintiff claimed 1/3rd share in the suit house. However, defendant no. 1 had suffered consent decree dated 20.2.1969 in suit no. 186 of 1969 in favour of defendant no. 2 declaring her to be exclusive owner of the suit house. Said decree has been challenged in the suit being illegal, null and void because plaintiff herein was not party thereto. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) Defendants contested the suit and broadly denied the plaint averments. It was, however, admitted that Panna Lal was owner of the suit house. Defendants pleaded that plaintiff had been adopted by Mahadev Parshad and accordingly the plaintiff did not inherit any share in the suit house from Panna Lal. Consent decree dated 20.2.1969 was pleaded to be legal and valid. It was also alleged that defendant no. 2 executed Will in favour of defendant no. 1. Various other pleas were also raised.