BHATERI AND OTHERS Vs. INDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs no.1, 2 and 4 having lost in both the courts below are in second appeal.

(2.) Appellants, along with proforma respondents no.3 and 4 and predecessor of proforma respondent no.5, filed suit against respondents no.1 and 2 as defendants. In the suit, the plaintiffs challenged consent judgment and decree dated 08.03.1991 suffered by plaintiffs' predecessor Sarupi in favour of defendant no.1 Inder Singh and the consequent mutation no.2407 being null and void. Plaintiffs alleged that Dharma was owner in possession of the suit land i.e. 1/4th share in the land described in the plaint. On his death, the same devolved on his wife Sarupi and the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs no.1 to 4 are daughters of Dharma and Sarupi, whereas plaintiffs no.5 and 6 are daughter and son of Bharto - daughter of Dharma and Sarupi. Accordingly, on the death of Sarupi, plaintiffs claimed the suit land by inheritance i.e. 1/5th share each by plaintiffs no.1 to 4 and 1/5th share by plaintiffs no.5 and 6 jointly. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land and judgment and decree dated 08.03.1991 and mutation no.2407 are illegal and null and void.

(3.) Defendants, by filing written statements, contested the suit and controverted the plaint averments. It was alleged that plaintiffs had suffered consent decree dated 18.03.1987 in favour of Sarupi, who accordingly became exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. Thereafter, Sarupi suffered impugned consent decree dated 08.03.1991 in favour of defendant no.1, who became exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. He has sold part of the suit land to defendant no.2, who is now owner in possession thereof. It was also alleged that the suit is time barred and is also bad on account of previous litigation. Registered Will dated 28.12.1992 executed by Sarupi in favour of defendant no.1 was also pleaded. Various other pleas were also raised.