KOMAL CHAUHAN AND OTHERS Vs. PUNIT RAGHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts, which led to the filing of the present suit, as averred by the appellants are that their father namely Harpal Singh son of Tulsi Singh @ Tulsi Ram was owner in possession of the land, as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint, measuring 67 Kanals 6 Marlas to the extent of half share i.e. 33 Kanals 13 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Bhondsi. Said Harpal Singh died on 22.09.2008 leaving behind five daughters (i.e. appellants) and his grandson (respondent) and widow of his son Rupesh Kumar. Rupesh Kumar, father of the defendant, in conspiracy with the revenue authorities and misguiding Harpal Singh, got transferred half share of the land in his favour illegally. Rupesh Kumar died on 11.09.1996 and after his death his wife had left the village because she was issueless and started living at her native place. She became dishonest in the month of November 2006 and came back to village Bhondsi and got mutated the half share of the land vide Mutation No.10334 dated 02.11.2006. The mother of the defendant illegally in conspiracy with the revenue officials had misguided Harpal Singh and got transferred the half share of the suit land in favour of her son Punit Raghav by way of release deed bearing No.2647 dated 07.08.2006 without notice to the appellants. It is further averment of the appellants that the act and conduct of the mother of defendant shows their malafide intention to grab the land of the appellants without any right. They requested the defendant to cancel the illegal release deed dated 07.08.2006, which was executed in his favour but the respondent did not pay any heed. Hence the necessity arose to file the instant suit seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that release deed vasika No.2647 dated 07.08.2006 be declared as null and void and not binding upon the rights of appellants with a further prayer that respondent be restrained from alienating, cultivating or changing the nature of the suit property in any manner whatsoever.

(2.) Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. The respondent admitted that Harpal Singh was owner in possession of the suit land and he had executed a Will dated 22.05.2006 before the Joint Sub Registrar, Sohna in favour of the defendant-respondent. Thereafter he also executed a relinquishment deed dated 07.08.2006 in his favour. It was further denied that Harpal Singh was ever misguided. It was further submitted that Harpal Singh had rightly relinquished his half share in favour of the respondent and the appellants knew about the said relinquishment deed during the lifetime of Harpal Singh. It was further denied that appellants came to know about this fact on 26.09.2008, i.e. after the death of Harpal Singh. It was stated that Harpal Singh had every right to relinquish his right in favour of his grandson. It was specifically denied that the suit property was ancestral in nature. The respondent further denied that he misguided Harpal Singh. It was stated that Harpal Singh was in senses till his death. In fact Harpal Singh had great love and affection for him as he was son of his predeceased son Rupesh Kumar. Even Harpal Singh duly executed the Will and release deed out of his own sweet will. The respondent specifically denied rest of the averments and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: