ISHWAR AND OTHERS Vs. PREMWATI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, aforesaid two appeals are being decided as both these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009 passed by Additional District Judge Rohtak, vide which both the appeals alongwith cross objections were dismissed. For convenience, facts are being taken from RSA No.33 of 2011.

(2.) Two suits were filed i.e Civil Suit No. 148 of 1995, 'Dhanpal (deceased) through LRs vs. Ishwar and others' and civil suit No.148A of 1995, 'Ishwar and others vs. Dhanpal and another'. Both these suits were consolidated and were taken for disposal jointly.

(3.) Dhanpal, s/o Mahiya, plaintiff filed the first suit for declaration that judgment and decree dated 21.11.1992 passed in civil suit No.960/92 titled 'Ishwar and others vs. Dhanpal' by the Civil Court at Rohtak and Will dated 01.03.1995 allegedly executed by Dhanpal in favour of his daughter is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants Ishwar and others from alienating the suit land and from dispossessing the plaintiff was also claimed. After the death of Dhanpal, he has been represented by his daughter Premwati and widow Smt. Rajan. In the suit, Dhanpal plaintiff has pleaded that he is the owner of the land measuring 29 Kanals 11 Marlas and also 1/5th share of 1 Kanal 18 Marlas in equal share, situated in the revenue state of Village Sundana, District Rohtak. It has been alleged that the defendants, namely, 'Ishwar and others' pressurised the plaintiff because he was not having son. Defendants pressurised the plaintiff and was not allowed to enjoy his share. Khewat of the plaintiff was got partitioned by the plaintiff by filing a partition suit before the revenue authorities at Rohtak which was decided on 24.02.1992. Separate portion was earmarked to the plaintiff Dhanpal and was allotted to him accordingly. The plaintiff being an old person fell in the trap of the defendants and they managed to get passed false and fictitious decree dated 21.11.1992 from the Civil Court at Rohtak. Dhanpal plaintiff came to know regarding the decree dated 21.11.1992 about 15 days prior to filing of this suit. The decree in question has been assailed on the ground that the plaintiff never engaged any counsel, nor signed or thumb marked any power of attorney. The written statement filed in said suit and the statement in Court are also false. The defendants were never the members of Hindu joint family as they got separated about 30 years ago and were residing separately. There was no necessity for the plaintiff to execute the alleged false and frivolous decree.