SUMITRA DEVI Vs. CHARAN DASS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2009. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed on 27.03.2010. This is how, plaintiff is before this court, in this regular second appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) In short, in a suit filed by the plaintiff, she prayed for a declaration that she was the owner in possession of half share of an agricultural land measuring 94 kanal 1 marla and for possession of 1/2 share of an agricultural land measuring 52 kanal 17 marla, situated in village Rair Kalan, Tehsil & District Panipat. And the judgment and decree dated 07.05.1990, titled "Charan Dass v. Sant Lal" was illegal and void. By way of consequential relief, a decree for injunction was also claimed, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property, in any manner. It was averred that Sant Lal son of Amir Chand, father of the plaintiff, was the owner of an agricultural land, measuring 18/19 acres, in village Rair Kalan. Sant Lal had two daughters, namely, Sumitra Devi i.e. plaintiff and Lilawanti i.e. the mother of the defendant. Sant Lal died on 16.06.1998 and his estate was succeeded by his two daughters in equal share. On the demise of Lilawanti, her estate was succeeded to by the defendants. Defendant No.1, agreed to manage the said agricultural land. And plaintiff never inquired into any details, as regards the expenses that were incurred by defendant No.1, nor he ever explained as to how much expenses he had undertaken in this regard. As parties were closely related, the said arrangement continued until, plaintiff with her husband visited village Rair Kalan and asked defendant No.1 to show them the agricultural land left by Sant Lal, and apprise them of the expenses he had incurred in maintaining the said land. But defendant No.1 felt offended and showed his reluctance to show the fields and to even disclose the expenses. Husband of the plaintiff approached the Patwari and learnt that defendant No.1 i.e. Charan Dass was shown to be the exclusive owner of the land, measuring 52 kanal 17 marla, out of the suit property owned by deceased Sant Lal. Further, defendant No.1 had obtained a decree, as regards a land measuring 52 kanal 17 marla, that was owned and possessed by Sant Lal. On obtaining the copies of the said judgment and decree, it was found that a fraud was played upon deceased Sant Lal by defendant. Therefore, the said decree was not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Further, the same required registration.

(3.) In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by time. It was maintained that Sant Lal was indeed the owner of a land measuring 94 kanal 1 marla, at the time of his death. Plaintiff Sumitra Devi and the mother of answering defendant, namely, Lilawanti were the two daughters of Sant Lal and he had no son. In fact, Sant Lal brought defendant No.1-Charan Dass to his village Rair Kalan, almost 25 years ago to look after his properties. Defendant No.1 looked after and treated Sant Lal as his own father and he in turn treated defendant No.1 as his natural son. Therefore, out of love and affection, he executed a registered will on 30.12.1998 and bequeathed 6 acres of agricultural land and a house No.26, situated in village Rair Kalan in favour of defendant No.1. And later on, he also suffered a decree qua an agricultural land, measuring 52 kanal 17 marla, comprised in specific khasra numbers, in favour of defendant No.1-Charan Dass on 07.05.1990. The said decree was based on a family settlement, that was arrived at in the presence of plaintiff-Lilawanti, mother of defendant No.1-Charan Dass, and other relatives and respectables of the village. Accordingly, defendant No.1 was put in possession of a land measuring 52 kanal 17 marla and the plaintiff was fully aware of the said decree. Son of the plaintiff, namely, Ramji Lal Arora, fraudulently got a mutation, bearing No.3180, sanctioned qua an agricultural land measuring 94 kanal 1 marla in favour of Sumitra and Lilawanti, by ignoring the will dated 30.12.1988.