VINAY PAL SINGH Vs. CAPTAIN VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by Vinay Pal Singh, the plaintiff. His suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal preferred by him also failed. Mahipal Singh@ Haripal Singh was owner of the land, as described in para 11 of the plaint. He was also owner of the land, described in para 1 of the plaint, besides other land in villages Udaipuri and Goela, district Gurgaon. He died on January 25, 1948 and the aforesaid property was inherited by his widow Smt. Jawala Devi. Mutation was sanctioned in her favour in February, 1948. As per allegations of the plaintiff, he was adopted by Jawala Devi as a son to her husband Mahipal Singh, after his death. Earlier Mahipal Singh had expressed his desire for such adoption and the same was with the consent of the other agates. The adoption ceremony was performed in the presence of relations and agnates of her husband. Thus, Vinay Pal Singh plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of the entire land which was left by Mahipal Singh after his death and that Jawala Devi was divested of her ownership and possessory rights in the estate of her husband.

(2.) The land was ancestral qua the plaintiff although the same was managed by Smt. Jawala Devi. In the revenue records, the land stood in the name of Jawala Devi. Captain Vijay Kumar and Jagdish Parshad Gupta, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, claimed to have purchased 3/4th and 1/4 share of the suit land, as described in para 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c) of the plaint, vide sale-deed numbers 4062, 4063 and 4064 executed and registered on March 14, 1973. Jawala Devi had no right, title or interest in the land to be transferred to them. Thus, such sale-deeds were void, ab initio and without consideration and legal necessity. The sale deeds were got executed by the defendants by playing fraud on Jawala Devi, who -had no authority to sell. Defendant No. 1 Capt. Vijay Kumar is alleged to have further sold 2/4th share out of his 3/4th share in the land, described above, in favour of defendants 3 and 4, namely Om Parkash Parmar and Jitender Singh Parmar, on November 17, 1982, in a collusive decree in suit No. 1177. Defendant Nos., 1 and 2 further sold the land, detailed in para 11 of the plaint, to defendant Nos. 5 to 8, Ram Chander and others, on June 22, 1974, which sale transaction was also fictitious and without, consideration. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 further mortgaged land, described in para 12 of the plaint, on July 28, 1978 in favour of defendant No. 9 Suraj Parkash, which was also alleged to be without consideration And was fictitious. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, Om Parkash and another, further transferred 2/4th share of the land, mentioned in paras 6(a) and 6(c) of the plaint, in favour of defendant Nos. 10 and 11, i.e. Satish Chauhan and Kuldip Singh, conceded in a suit in which decree was passed on December 19, 1983. All these transactions were alleged to be collusive, without consideration and not binding on the plaintiff As a consequential relief, the defendants were sought to be restrained permanently from interfering in the ownership of the plaintiff. In the alternative, relief of possession was also claimed, as it was alleged that during pendency of the suit itself the plaintiff was dispossessed.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants by filing separate written statements. Several pleas were raised, challenging the alleged adoption and that they had become owners by transfers, which were genuine and binding. In the alternative some of the defendants pleaded that they were owners, in adverse possession, further claiming that Jawala Devi had also become owner by adverse possession. The plaintiff controverted all these allegations in the replication.