MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. MANJU KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dtd. 19/11/2022 (wrongly mentioned as 15/10/2022) (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram (for brevity - Trial Court), whereby application moved by the petitioners/defendants no.4, 6 and 7 (hereinafter referred to as - the defendants), seeking amendment of written statement, has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs/respondents no.1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as - the plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration and partition against the defendants, seeking consequential relief of permanent injunction inter alia on the ground that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of their father late Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, when he inherited the same from his father late Shri Ram Chander Bhardwaj and plaintiffs have co-parcenary rights in the suit property. The plaintiffs have 1/8th share each i.e. 3/8th share in the suit property. The decree dtd. 10/6/1983 and mutation in the revenue record, pursuant to the said decree, are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs as the said decree was result of fraud. The sons of late Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma did not acquire any land during life time of Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma on the basis of said decree, which was never acted upon.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit, filed written statement and submitted that the plaintiffs have no right in the ancestral property and they were not co-parceners, when Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma died in the year 1966. Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, in the family settlement, made all his five sons as joint owners of the suit property and said family settlement was confirmed in the judgment and decree dtd. 10/6/1983, passed by the competent Court. Since Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma died prior to the year 2005, the plaintiffs being daughters, could not have become the co-parceners in the suit property.