AMRIT LAL Vs. SAVITRI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second appeal of the first defendant in a suit filed by respondents no. 1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs), seeking a decree of declaration that they are owners in possession in equal shares of land measuring 18 kanals 03 marlas, i.e. a total 1/16th share in the following tracts of land:-

(2.) The plaintiffs claim to have inherited the suit land from their predecessor-in-interest, Rohtash, son of Shree Chand, who was stated to be the husband of respondent-plaintiff no. 1, Savitri, and the father of the other three plaintiffs (respondents herein), i.e. Pooja, Pawan and Jyotisana. Rohtash, who is stated to have died on 03.01.2007, was stated to have inherited the land from his father, Shree Chand, and it was contended that the two defendants in the suit, i.e. the present appellant Amrit Lal son of Shree Chand (brother of Rohtash), and the present respondent no. 5, Inder Singh son of Ami Chand, both had no right, title or interest in the land. (Respondent no.5 is stated to be a person to whom the suit land was mortgaged by the appellant). It was further prayed in their suit by the plaintiffs, that an earlier judgment and decree dated 15.05.1995, passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani, in Civil Suit No. 318 of 1995, titled as Amrit Lal Vs. Rohtash, qua the suit land measuring 18 kanals 03 marlas, as also the mutation entered consequent thereupon in the revenue record on 19.12.1995, bearing no. 826, were illegal, null and void, being based on a mis-representation, not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. Subsequent entries in the revenue record, including mortgage deed no. 2146 dated 02.06.2004, and mutation no. 1022 dated 04.11.2004, were also sought to be set aside on the same ground. Further, the plaintiffs also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the present appellant-defendant no. 1 from alienating the suit land in any manner. An alternative relief of possession of the suit land was also sought by the plaintiffs.

(3.) It was further contended in the plaint that the inheritance of Rohtash, qua the suit land, from his father Shree Chand, was duly reflected by way of mutation no. 725 in the revenue record and that the land in the hands of Shree Chand had been inherited by eight heirs, including Rohtash and appellant-defendant no. 1, Amrit Lal, in equal shares, i.e. a ?th share each, as part of ancestral property in which plaintiffs no. 2 to 4 had a birth right, and plaintiff no. 1 had a right to it since her marriage to Rohtash.