MST. RADHA BAI Vs. DEVA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jind, dated August 5, 1974. In order to understand the facts of the case, the following pedigree table will be helpful.

(2.) THE case of the Plaintiff is that Teju Ram, husband of the Plaintiff add Madna Mal, his brother, owned land in village Chaudhary Juma Muana and Goth -mai, District Rahimiyar Khan (Bahawalpur Mate). Teju Ram died in 1931 and the mutation of inheritance of his land situated in village Chaudhary Juma Muana was sanctioned in her favour, but the mutation of land in village Goth -mai was attested in favour of Madna Mal. Madna Mai died in 1934 and after his death, the mutation of his inheritance in respect of lands in village Chaudhary Juma Muana was sanctioned in favour of the Plaintiff and that of village Goth -mai, in favour of Tharu Ram father of Deva Ram Defendant. It is alleged by the Plaintiff that she remained in possession of the land in village Goth Mai, but mutation of that land was got attested by Madna Mal and Tharu Ram by fraud and in collusion with the revenue officials. After the partition of the country, she states, the Defendant by misrepresentation, got allotted land in dispute in village Rasidan, in his favour in lieu of the land situated in village Goth -mai. The Plaintiff has challenged the orders of the allotting authorities regarding the aforesaid land in favour of the Defendant. It is also alleged by her that the authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Jullundur, ordered the Plaintiff to seek a declaration from the civil Court regarding her ownership to the property in dispute. She consequently instituted the present suit for declaration that (1) she was heir of Teju Ram and Madna Mal and as such owner of the land in dispute and was entitled to its possession:(2) mutation dated June 16, 1932 in respect of land situated in village Goth mai, District Rahimiyar Khan (Pakistan) in favour of Madna Mal as heir of Teju Ram, husband of the Plaintiff was null and void and was not binding upon the rights of the Plaintiff; (3) mutation regarding the aforesaid land in favour of Tharu Ram, father of the Defendant in lieu of which the land in dispute had been allotted to the Defendant, was null and void and was not binding upon the rights of the Plaintiff and (4) the mutation of inheritance in respect of the land situated in village Goth -mai in favour of the Defendant and the orders of allotment land situated in village Rasidan, was also not binding upon her rights.

(3.) It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the learned first appellate Court has erred in holding that the plaint is vague. He further argues that the Court, therefore could not reject the plaint of the Appellant. I have considered the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and find force in it. The circumstances in which the plaint can be rejected, have been given in order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein it is provided that the plaint shall be rejected: