CHALTI DEVI Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 30.5.1985 passed in civil suit titled Rajinder versus Chalti and all consequent proceedings in pursuance thereof are null and void on the rights of the plaintiffs with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land and interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Chalti Devi is the daughter of Nandan s/o Ayodhya Prashad. Ayodhya Prashad had another son Daulat Ram who had two sons Dina Nath and Sham Lal. The defendants are the sons of Dina Nath.

(3.) ON 17.3.1986, plaintiffs i.e. Smt. Chalti Devi and her sons, instituted the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction seeking declaration that the decree dated 30.5.1985 and all subsequent actions in pursuance of the decree are null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. It has been claimed by the plaintiffs that Smt. Chalti Devi suffered a decree in favour of her sons i.e. plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 on 12.6.1985 and when they went to Halqa Patwari in order to given him the copy of the decree for effecting the change in the record, they were informed of the impugned decree in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs have alleged that Richhpal, son of Smt. Chalti Devi, was admitted in Civil Hospital, Karnal, in the month of May, 1985. Dina Nath, father of the defendants, came to her and fraudulently obtained her thumb-impressions on some plain papers on the allegations that in connection with some pending case concerning their land her thumb-impressions were required. Due to relationship she believed him and put her thumb- impressions. Later on, she came to know that decree dated 30.5.1985 was obtained as a result of fraud and misrepresentation. She alleged that a false story of family settlement has been set up as they are not members of the joint Hindu family and, therefore, there is no question of family settlement.