BABITA Vs. BALA DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mewat whereby the appeal preferred by Bala Devi and Bhaterirespondents No. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 9.6.2012 passed by the trial court has been allowed and the suit filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) has been partly decreed.

(2.) The contesting respondents (Bala Devi and Smt.Bhateri) filed the suit that they alongwith respondents No. 3 to 5 are co-sharers in joint possession of land measuring 47 kanals 5 marlas to the extent of 1/8th share, detailed in para 1 of the plaint whereas mutation No. 11448, in favour of respondent No. 3 in regard to inheritance of the entire share of Bhagwati daughter of Tek Chand and sale deed No. 2865 dated 20.12.2006 executed by respondent No. 3 in favour of the appellant (defendant No. 4 therein) are illegal, null and void. It is averred that earlier their father Tek Chand and Smt. Mankori were owners in possession of the suit land. Tek Chand performed marriage with Satwati and out of this wedlock, the plaintiffs, Kavita-respondent No. 4 and one Bhagwati were born. After death of Satwati, Tek Chand performed second marriage with Smt. Rajni Devirespondent No. 3. After death of Tek Chand, respondents No. 1 and 2, Bhagwati and respondents No. 3 to 5 inherited his share in equal six shares (1/48th share each) vide mutation No. 8283. Thereafter, Bhagwati expired and her 1/48th share was inherited by respondents No. 1 to 5 but respondent No. 3 by playing fraud upon them succeeded in getting the entire share of Bhagwati transferred in her favour vide mutation No. 11448. Thereafter, she sold the said share alongwith her own share in favour of the appellant vide sale deed No. 2865 dated 20.12.2006. The sale by respondent No. 3 qua the entire share of Bhagwati is illegal, null and void as respondent No. 3 was entitled to 1/5th share out of 1/48th share inherited by Bhagwati from Sh. Tek Chand.

(3.) The appellant, respondents No. 3 and 4 filed separate written statements raising preliminary objections inter alia challenging maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the respondents/plaintiffs and they being guilty of concealing the true and material facts. On merits, it was averred that Smt. Rajni Devi-respondent No. 3 was absolute owner of the suit land by virtue of mutation No. 11448. She voluntarily sold the entire share in favour of the appellant vide sale deed No. 2865 dated 20.12.2006 for a valuable consideration. Before getting the sale deed executed, the appellant verified the revenue records.