BHAGAL Vs. BULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dtd. 21/1/1993 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak allowing the appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dtd. 22/5/1992 passed by the Court of learned Additional Senior SubJudge, Jhajjar, District Rohtak, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff had been decreed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their original status.

(3.) The plaintiff Bhagal and the defendants Bulla and Tara Chand were real brothers, all three being sons of Smt. Siriya and Jiya Ram. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of 1/3rd share of land measuring 56 Kanals 02 Marlas (fully described in the plaint) situated in Village Kutani, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') (at the relevant time, Jhajjar was in District Rohtak)and for a declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dtd. 23/4/1987 passed in Civil Suit No.273 of 1987 titled as 'Bulla Vs. Bhagal Etc.' was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff was that he had never appeared in any Court nor had he engaged any counsel or filed any written statement and that the thumb impressions of the plaintiff over the Power of Attorney and written statement were not his and somebody else had impersonated. It was claimed that the decree was illegal and that the same had been obtained with the collusion of the defendants. Further, with the collusion of the revenue authorities, Mutation No.1151 had been sanctioned on 14/11/1987 which again was not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 Bulla contested the suit. However, defendant No.2 Tara Chand did not put in appearance and was accordingly proceeded against ex parte. However, he later appeared as DW-4 in the evidence of the defendants. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, all averments were controverted and the decree was defended, having been validly passed.