ANKUR (SINCE DECEASED) Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of titled 'Ankur (since deceased) through her LRs vs. Gurdev Singh and others' and RSA No.1750 of 1987 titled ' Gurdev Singh vs. Ankur (since deceased) through her LRs and others as they arise out of the common judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, in the same suit.

(2.) THE Court of first instance vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.1983 dismissed the suit for declaration filed by plaintiff Phulla (died during the pendency of suit and represented by his mother Smt. Ankur) against defendants Gurdev Singh and others. Against the judgment and decree passed by Court of first instance, Ankur preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court. Vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.1986 learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, modified the judgment and decree passed by the Court of first instance; partly decreed and partly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, these two appeals.

(3.) THE detailed facts of the case are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that Phulla filed a suit for declaration against Gurdev Singh and others that he was owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 128 kanals 8 marlas, fully described in the plaint. Baru and others were his collateral and were cultivating the land on his behalf. Defendant No.1 Gurdev Singh deceitfully took Phulla from his village and got collusive decree passed in his favour in respect of the suit land by filing civil suit No.349 of 1976. Phulla challenged the decree dated 23.08.1986 passed in civil suit No.349 of 1976. It was further alleged that Phulla was of infirm mind and was a drug addict. He was forcefully taken by Gurdev Singh. There was no question of any family settlement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 Gurdev Singh as he was not related to Phulla in any manner. Since there was no family settlement, said decree is result of fraud, misrepresentation and deceit. It was further alleged that collaterals of plaintiff had also challenged collusive decree and obtained interim injunction but in violation of injunction order defendant No.1 sold land measuring 26 kanals 8 marlas to defendant No.2.