SATYA DEVI Vs. RAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial Judge whereby his suit for declaration that the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 387 decided on January 25, 1973 was null and void was dismissed, in this regular second appeal.

(2.) THE facts: -Dev Raj, father of defendants No. 1 and 2/respondents (hereinafter defendants No. 1 and 2), was owner of more than 100 acres of land in village Matarsham, Tehsil and District Hissar; that he was a big landowner and in order to save his land from being declared surplus, he transferred the same in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 and later on sold the same as their guardian; that defendants No. 1 and 2 brought a suit to challenge the sale, which was registered as Suit No 387 and decided on January 25, 1973; that in the said suit, the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter the plaintiff) was impleaded as a defendent and that suit also related to possession of the land comprised in Killa Nos. 57/24 and 25 and other land alleged to have been sold; that the plaintiff alleged his possession on land comprised in Killa Nos. 57/24 and 25 as owner having got it from his mother, who was allotted the same during consolidation; that defendants No. 1 and 2 had no right title or interest in that land and that the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 387 decided on January 25, 1973 would not bind him since he was proceeded ex-parte.

(3.) THE defendant-respondents denied the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 387 decided on January 25, 1973 was unassailable; that the plaintiff was a party defendant in the suit; that he did not put in appearance and he was served by substituted service and it would be deemed to be a valid service.