KANYA DEVI Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kanya Devi aggrieved of judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra dated 4th October, 1996 has filed the present appeal wherein her obvious prayer, is to set aside the order of the Additional District Judge and to restore the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Before, however, the grounds on which the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is sought to be set aside are noticed and discussed, it will be useful to give a brief backdrop of the facts culminating into filing of the present appeal.

(2.) Rikhi Ram original plaintiff survived by Kanya Devi his widow, filed a suit for possession of suit land measuring 159 Kanals 10 Marlas situated in village Dhola Majra, one house and a room as described in the plaint. He pleaded that he was son of Shankari, the real sister of Dropti Devi who was original owner of the suit land. Dropti Devi died issueless and her husband had predeceased her. She used to reside with her husband Dhani Ram, resident of Khera but sometime prior to her death she started residing with plaintiff and she used to render services to her. Dropti Devi expired on 20th February, 1975 leaving the plaintiff as her sole heir. However, the defendant Som Nath who was not related to the original owner got the mutation entered in his favour fraudulently and dishonestly alleging that Dropti had executed a will in his favour on 7th February, 1969. It was further pleaded by him that Dropti never executed any Will nor she had any right to execute the same. However, the defendant on the basis of forged Will obtained the possession of the land and house. The suit was, thus, filed praying for possession of the property in dispute. The matter was contested primarily on the ground that the defendant was close relative of the deceased and she executed a valid Will in his favour and got it registered and that she also got installed a tubewell in the name of defendant during her life time. He also pleaded that he was in possession of the suit property since 1964 and that plaintiff Rikhi Ram Was an old man and his wife was blind" and therefore, there was no question of rendering any service to the deceased. Defendant, however, admitted the relationship of the plaintiff with the deceased. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed various issues but when the case was fixed for recording evidence of the plaintiff both counsel and the parties appeared on 26th August, 1981 and obtained an adjournment on the ground that compromise talks were going on and therefore, the case be adjourned. The case was, thus, adjourned to 24th September, 1981. On the adjourned date, yet another adjournment was sought for producing compromise. The Court then adjourned the matter to 3rd November, 1981. On the said date, the plaintiff moved an application that the case has been compromised, and be decided in terms thereof. Compromise Ex. P-1 dated 24th July, 1981 was, thus, placed on record. The defendant, however, denied the existence of any such compromise and asserted that the same was fake and procured document. He also pleaded that no such document was read over to him nor he thumb-marked/signed the same knowing its contents and the admission, if any, made in the alleged compromise was herewith withdrawn. On account of this development i.e. compromise deed having been produced by the one party and denied by the other, the trial Court framed the following issue for decision:-

(3.) After recording evidence of the parties and discussing the same the trial Court returned a finding on the sole issue referred to above in favour of plaintiff and thus, held that the suit stands adjusted in view of the compromise and therefore, decree for declaration that she was owner of the suit land, house and room in dispute was granted. However, the right of the defendant to remain in possession of four acres of land adjoining to G. T. Road and two rooms in the house as licensee under the plaintiff was protected. It is this judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court which was successfully challenged by the defendant culminating into the order that has been impugned in the present appeal.