KARAN SINGH Vs. BHAGWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal directs challenge against the consistent findings recorded by the Courts below whereby suit filed by Bhagwani (since deceased) now represented by her legal representatives was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.1991 and the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 09.04.1994.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that Bhagwani daughter of Sis Ram filed a suit for declaration claiming that she is the real sister of Mir Singh son of Sis Ram resident of Salimsar Majra, District Sonepat. It is averred that Mir Singh had two sisters namely Bhagwani (plaintiff) and Khazani who died about 3-4 years back. The plaintiff is the only reversioner/legal heir of Mir Singh. Lado - defendant started living with Mir Singh for the past sometime. Mir Singh was unmarried and owner of land measuring 111 kanals situated in village Salimsar Majra. He also had two houses and a gher. Mir Singh went missing two days prior to the last Diwali. She made efforts to trace him but failed. Mir Singh was last seen with Lado at Murthal Adda, G.T. Road. FIR No.951 dated 27.03.1983 was lodged under Section 364 IPC. She came to know that Lado obtained a decree against Mir Singh on 011982 from the Court of Sub-Judge, Sonepat. The decree is not binding upon the plaintiff and liable to be set-aside. Mir Singh never appeared before the Court of Sub-Judge, Ist Class nor thumb-marked the written statement. The decree is the result of misrepresentation and fraud. Lado was not the wife of Mir Singh nor constituted Joint Hindu Family with Mir Singh. Lado was the wife of Hari Singh Chippi resident of village Pinana and she had three daughters from her husband. Lado could not marry Mir Singh nor can claim any right to the suit property through Mir Singh.

(3.) The suit was contested by Lado (proforma respondent) (since deceased). She raised preliminary objections inter alia that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as she is not the daughter of Sis Ram; suit is not maintainable in the present form as no suit lies to set-aside the consent decree under Order 23, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC'). It is further averred that plaintiff is not the legal heir of Mir Singh and has no right to inherit property of Mir Singh. The defendant being the wife of Mir Singh is the sole legal heir to succeed to the property of Mir Singh. She performed Karewa marriage with Mir Singh long ago. She is the absolute owner of the suit land, two houses and a gher situated in village Salimsar Majra. The answering defendant has been shown as wife of Mir Singh in the voter list No.294 of the year 1981. Mutation No.1894 was sanctioned in her favour on 06.05.198 She had been paying the loans taken by her husband. A valid decree dated 02.12.1982 in suit No.951 of 1982 was passed in her favour, binding upon all the heirs of Mir Singh. The plaintiff has no relation with Mir Singh. Love does not care any caste and creed and Jats can marry a daughter of any caste. No description of fraud has been given and story of misrepresentation and fraud is wrong.