PRITAM SINGH Vs. LACHHMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS No. 5 to 7 are in appeal. A suit for declaration and consequential relief for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent Lachhman Singh and others with regard to land measuring 134 kanals 18 marlas. The plaintiff claimed that he is the owner in possession of the land in dispute and that defendants No. 1 and 2, namely Dharam Singh and Piara Singh in connivance with other defendants had obtained a judgment and decree dated September 19, 1992 in civil suit No. 613 of 1992 titled as Dharam Singh and another v. Nasib Singh and others from the court of Sub Judge I Class, Kurukshetra. It was averred that the said judgment and decree dated September 19, 1992 are illegal, null and void, in-operative and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and were a result of fraud and mis-representation and, therefore, were liable to be set aside. In the plaint, it was averred by the plaintiff that the defendants, at the time of the earlier suit, had told him that the land was to be petitioned in accordance with the shares. The plaintiff was accordingly agreed to get the land partitioned. Accordingly, he agreed to suffer a decree for partition between the parties. However, he had never agreed to get his land transferred in the names of the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that he had come to know about the aforesaid fraud played upon him by the defendants from Halqa Patwari when he came to know about the sanction of mutation in favour of the defendants. Accordingly, he filed a suit with the prayer as aforesaid.

(2.) UPON notice of the aforesaid suit, defendants No. 1, 5 to 7, 9 to 13 only appeared and filed separate written statements.

(3.) DEFENDANTS No. 5 to 7 and 9 filed a separate written statement. They have also objected that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land since he had delivered the possession of the suit land to defendant No. 5 on rent. They also supported the decree dated September 19, 1992 claiming that the same was suffered voluntarily by plaintiff-Lachhman Singh. They also maintained that the earlier suit was not for partition and the same was for the exchange of the land and the parties to the said decree had voluntarily made the statements.