RAM GIRI Vs. GUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree of two courts below dismissing the suit.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is complete misreading of evidence by the courts below. A substantial question of law, thus, arises whether courts below have misread the evidence and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Interference is thus called in second appeal.

(3.) BRIEF factual background of the case is that appellant filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and alternatively for possession of 1/4th share of suit RSA No. 160 of 2009 land. Case of the plaintiff is that she was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 12 Kanals & 12 marlas being 1/4th share of 50 kanals & 7 marlas of land described in plaint situated in revenue estate of Khawaspur, District Gurgaon having inherited it from her father Amar Singh who died on 20.02.1955. Plaintiff was daughter of Amar Singh and Ram Rati and was born in the year 1941. After the death of Amar Singh, defendants starting threatening and interfering in her ownership and possession which necessitated her to check the revenue record. On checking the revenue record she came to know that she was not the owner of 1/4th share in the suit land. Furthermore, mutation of inheritance of Amar Singh had been sanctioned in favour of her uncles Kunda, Kehar and Bhagwana. Plaintiff further came to know that mutation regarding inheritance of deceased Amar Singh and subsequent entries in the revenue record showing defendants to be owners in possession of the suit land were void, illegal and not binding upon her rights on the ground that deceased Amar Singh was her real father. She further alleged that she did not know the sanctioning of mutation in favour of her uncles because at that time she was minor and illiterate. She has, thus, sought inheritance of 1/4th share of Amar Singh on the basis of natural succession being her sole heir and also for declaration to the effect that she was owner and actual physical possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/4th. A decree for injunction restraining the defendants not to encroach upon the rights of the plaintiff was also prayed.