SHYAM LATA Vs. RAJBIR SINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant No.1- appellants (defendant-appellants) challenging the concurrent findings returned by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 25/8/2012 and the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 29/11/2021.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a suit for declaration that the judgment and decree dtd. 1/8/1995 and subsequent mutation No.3564 and mutation of inheritance No.4034 in favour of legal heirs of defendant No.2 - Virender Singh - were illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the same were liable to be set aside. Further prayer was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly taking possession of the suit property and from alienating the suit property. It was the case set up that the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants, namely, Hari Kishan was owner in possession of the land as described in the plaint. The said property was ancestral in the hands of Hari Kishan - father of the parties. The plaintiffs and the defendants constituted a joint Hindu family property. Hari Kishan, father of the parties, expired in the month of July 1997 and thereafter the plaintiffs and the defendants came into possession of the suit property in equal shares. Virender Singh, brother of the plaintiffs, expired on 7/7/2011. At the time of death of Virender Singh, his legal heirs told the plaintiffs about the decree dtd. 1/8/1995 and regarding the share of each of the parties. On learning about the judgment and decree dtd. 1/8/1995, the plaintiffs made some inquiries from the Halqa Patwari which revealed that mutation No.3564 had been sanctioned in this regard on 23/2/1998 in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants. It was averred that the said judgment and decree dtd. 1/8/1995 and the subsequent mutations were illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. It was the stand taken by the plaintiffs that they never signed the plaint of Civil Suit No.292 dtd. 24/5/1995 and the defendants had forged their signatures knowingly and intentionally. It was further the stand that no family settlement ever took place between the family members as stated in the judgment and decree dtd. 1/8/1995. Rather, the property had been divided equally amongst all the sons. It was further the case that plaintiff No.1 was an Army personnel and he resided away from the village due to his service on the border areas. Hence, the present suit.

(3.) On notice the legal heirs of Virender Singh (defendant No.2) appeared and filed a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, limitation, locus-standi etc. It was stated that the plaintiffs and the defendants were now owners in possession of the agricultural land as per the judgment and decree dtd. 1/8/1995. It was further the stand that the said judgment and decree was within the knowledge of all and the same was valid and none of the family members had any objection to the same.