MAMRAJ SINGH Vs. PREM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of reversal dated 15.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari dated 22.2.2007 allowing the suit.

(2.) INDISPUTABLY , late Ram Chander was a share holder in the ancestral property which became subject matter of the present suit. The positive findings are that the property was not self -acquired and devolved on Ram Chander in terms of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by way of succession. Ram Chander was the maternal grandfather of the appellant Mamraj Singh. Ram Chander died on 2nd April, 1994. He left behind three daughters, Prem, Anoop and Sumer. The appellant is the son of Anoop. Respondent No.1 is the younger sister of Anoop. She is also said to be the wife of the younger brother of the father of the appellant. Parties are thus in dual relationship. It transpires that Ram Chander in his life time and about 2 years before he passed away entered into a collusive decree dated 27th April, 1992 in a suit titled Mamraj Singh v. Ram Chander instituted in the Court of the learned Sub Judge, Rewari which was decreed on 27th April, 1992 declaring Mamraj Singh as the adopted son of his maternal grandfather Ram Chander. On the basis of the consent decree, the suit property found its way in the revenue records with mutation sanctioned in favour of appellant -defendant No.1 inter -vivos.

(3.) PREM , daughter of Ram Chander asserted her right to property by natural succession and brought civil suit No.140 of 1999 on 3rd August, 1999 for declaration of her rights according to her share. There is no dispute that Ram Chander died interstate leaving behind his 3 daughters. He bore no son. She claimed in the suit that the consent decree was the result of fraud played by Mamraj Singh to prevent her rights in corpus property. The consent decree in Mamraj Singh v. Ram Chander was collusive and not binding on her rights by way of natural succession. The adoption, if any, which is stated to have taken place in 1974 was not sanctified by procedure established by law relating to adoptions in its well recognised rituals and ceremonies nor was registered. No ceremony was performed nor was there any giving and taking by the parents of Mamraj Singh and the maternal grandfather Ram Chander. Mutation No.115 dated 3.2.1993 and revenue entries based thereon were null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 Mamraj Singh, the appellant before this Court had no pre -existing rights in the disputed property. If there were no pre -existing rights vesting in him, there could be no valid family settlement entered between late Ram Chander and Mamraj Singh, the property being ancestral in nature. In the plaint, she pleaded that she learnt of the consent decree when she visited the office of the Halqa Patwari in 1999 and on gaining knowledge of the same, she brought the suit to assert her rights to the disputed property.