KRISHNA Vs. RAJESH DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two regular second appeals, one at the instance of defendant No.2 and second at the instance of defendants No. 5 and 6, are being decided together, as both the appeals are between the same parties, arising out the same impugned judgments. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from RSA No. 2307 of 2010.

(2.) Briefly put, facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in para 2 to 8 of the impugned judgment, are that plaintiff-Joginder (deceased), through his legal representatives, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present appellant-defendants and other respondents with the averments that Smt. Champa Devi wife of Dharam Singh was earlier owner in possession of the suit land and properties mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint. Smt. Champa died on 5.3.1996. Smt. Champa widow of Dharam Singh had three sons namely Joginderplaintiff, defendant No. 3-Vikram Singh and Rajender who was adopted by Bihari son of Mohar Singh. Smt.Champa Devi had also two daughters namely Parkash Devi- defendant No.1 and Smt. Krishna-defendant No.2 who were married and given sufficient dowry in their marriage by Smt. Champa Devi. Services were rendered to Smt. Champa Devi by the respondent-plaintiff namely Joginder (deceased) through his LRs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) and by the respondent-defendant no. 4 namely Ombir Singh. Smt. Champa Devi, during her life time, executed a registered Will dated 10.1.1996 on her own will in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4-Ombir Singh pertaining to her immovable properties mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint in equal shares. After death of Smt. Champa Devi, plaintiff and defendant No. 4-Ombir Singh became owner of 1/2 share each in the agricultural land and properties mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint. The defendants in collusion with the revenue officials had got sanctioned the mutation of inheritance No. 7836 dated 30.5.1996 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 3 in equal shares, despite the fact that the registered Will was executed by Smt. Champa Devi and hence, the mutation no.7836 was illegal, null and void and same was liable to set aside. It was further alleged that the defendant no.2 namely Krishna Devi had sold away some part of the suit land in favour of defendants No. 5 and 6 (appellants in the first appeal) vide sale deed No .1309 dated 3.9.2004. Mutation on the basis of this sale deed No. 1309 dated 3.9.2004 and mutation sanctioned on the basis of this sale deed were illegal, null and void and the same were liable to be set aside. Hence, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed.

(3.) Defendant No.2 Smt. Krishna Devi filed the written statement and contested the suit on the grounds that no Will dated 10.1.1996 executed by Smt.Champa Devi in favour of the plaintiff and defendant no. 4 was, during her life time. The mutation of inheritance bearing no. 7836 dated 30.5.1996 was legal, valid and it was rightly attested in favour of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 in equal shares. Defendant No.2 had alienated her share in the suit land vide sale deed no. 1309 dated 3.9.2004 in favour of the defendants No. 5 and 6. Defendant No.2 was fully competent to alienate her share. Defendant No.2 denied other averments of the plaint and took preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, court fee and maintainability. Defendant no. 2 also filed counter claim alleging that the registered Will No. 24 dated 10.1.1996 executed by Smt. Champa Devi ln favour of the plaintiff and proforma defendant no.4 was wrong, illegal, null and void and it was liable to be set aside declaring the same as illegal.