HANS RAM Vs. DULI CHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HANS Ram, plaintiff, appellant herein, had approached the court of learned Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Bhiwani, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') vide Civil Suit No. 426 of 17.12.1981, to seek a decree of declaration to the effect that he and the proforma defendant Nos. 6 to 11 in the suit and also in the present appeal were owners in possession of one -half share of the suit land as per description given in the headnote of the plaint and that the gift deed dated 16.05.1959 (Exhibit P -1), executed by Mohar Singh in favour of defendants No. 1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the contesting respondents') was null and void, consequently, not binding on the rights of the plaintiff/appellant and the proforma respondents; and for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the contesting respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/appellant and that of the proforma respondents to the extent of one -half share in the suit land. Edifice for the aforesaid relief was raised on the averments that parties to the suit were closely related to one another and were descendants of a common ancestor, named, Bhani, their grandfather. After the death of Mohar Singh, who died issueless, parties to the suit were liable to inherit the estate left behind by said Mohar Singh in equal shares, but the contesting respondents allegedly got a gift deed dated 16.05.1959 (Exhibit P -1), executed by said Mohar Singh in their favour in spite of the fact that said Mohar Singh was unable to understand the meaning of the gift deed and to make a statement at the time of execution thereof. Thus, the gift deed was illegal and inoperative.

(2.) THE contesting respondents filed a written statement pleading preliminary objections, inter alia, to the effect that plaintiff's suit was not maintainable in its present form; it was beyond limitation; plaintiff and proforma respondents were estopped by their acts and conduct from filing the suit; the suit was not properly verified and Siri Ram, defendant No.4, was wrongly impleaded. While defending the execution of the gift deed, the contesting respondents, however, denied all other allegations of the plaint.

(3.) THE learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, formulated issues as under: -