SAHAB SINGH Vs. BALINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the courts below. The suit of the appellant for declaration was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2009 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jagadhari and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 05.03.2012 passed by the District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari.

(2.) In the instant case, the appellant sought declaration to the effect that the decree dated 24.03.1995 passed by the then Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhari in Civil Suit No.238 dated 11.03.1995 titled as 'Balinder Singh & others v. Maan Singh' in respect of the land measuring 24 Kanals 6 Marlas being 1/3rd share out of the land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.40/89, Khasra No.182, Khatauni No.90, Khasra No.28//13/2, 14/1, 17/2, 18, Khewat/Khatauni No.40/91, Khasra No.28//19, 20, Khewat/Khatauni No.57/118, Khasra No.28//4/1, 8, 9/2, 10/1/2, 12, 6, 7/1, 7/2 Khatauni No.119, Khasra No.28//13 including the share in the shamlat deh as per jamabandi for the year 1991-92 situated within the revenue estate of Village Milk Khas suffered by respondent No.3 Man Singh in favour of respondents No.1 & 2 and mutation No.441 dated 30.05.1995 are illegal, null and void being act of fraud and misrepresentation and the same is liable to be set aside. The appellant/plaintiff also sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining respondents No.1 and 2 from alienating the suit land in any manner whatsoever.

(3.) The case of the appellant, as set out, is that the land in dispute is ancestral property in the hands of respondent No.3 and therefore, the appellant has a right in the said property. Respondent No.3 is unmarried and is living with the appellant who is serving him in all respects. It is further case of the appellant that respondent No.3 had no right to alienate or transfer the suit land in favour of respondents No.1 and 2, who by playing a fraud upon him obtained a decree dated 24.03.1995 from the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhari in Civil Suit No.238 dated 11.03.1995. It has been further alleged in the suit that no family settlement, as alleged, ever took place between respondents No.1 and 2 on the one hand and respondent No.3 on the other; because respondents No.1 and 2 had no pre-existing right in view of the fact that their father Yash Pal was alive. It was further pleaded that the impugned decree was a result of the fraud and the same does not hold the ground as the same required registration. The appellant came to know about the decree in question in September 2000 when he visited the Halqa Patwari to obtain papers for the purpose of availing loan. Hence the instant suit.