GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. ANGREZ KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge, in this appeal, is the judgment and decree dated 13.8.2004 passed by Shri J.S. Klar, the then Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby he accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2004 delivered by Shri S.S. Panesar, the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh and resultantly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and possession against the defendants.

(2.) THE necessary facts, as culled out from the pleadings of the parties, are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the decree and judgment in Civil Suit No. 556 of 21.9.1994 titled Gurcharan Singh and others v. Bhajan Singh, decided on 9.1.1995 by the then Additional Senior Sub Judge, Amloh in respect of property of Bhajan Singh mentioned at letters ABC&D in the head note of the plaint were wrong, without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void, ineffective and inoperative qua their proprietary rights as heirs of said Bhajan Singh and that they were the owners of the suit land and for possession of the suit land as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1990-91 situated within the revenue limits of village Siraj Majra, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib on the ground that Bhajan Singh son of Sohan Singh, resident of village Siraj Majra was the owner and in possession of land mentioned at letters ABCD. The defendants have no concern or connection with said Bhajan Singh, who were not related to Bhajan Singh, in any manner. On the basis of wrong allegations, the defendants in a secret and collusive manner filedS Civil Suit No. 556 of 21.9.1994 against Bhajan Singh and obtained judgment and decree regarding the suit land. The said judgment and decree were against facts, law, illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction,ineffective and inoperative qua their rights being owners as heirs of Bhajan Singh on the following grounds :-

(3.) ON notice, the defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. They admitted the contents of para No. 1 of the plaint. They denied that the defendants had no concern with Bhajan Singh. Rather, Bhajan Singh was their uncle in relationship and belonged to the same family. It was also denied that they, in a secret or collusive manner, filed Civil Suit No. 556 of 21.9.1994, decided on 9.1.1995. They averred that Bhajan Singh voluntarily suffered decree dated 9.1.1995 on his own free will on the basis of family settlement effected by Bhajan Singh on 15.6.1994 and relinquished his proprietary rights in their favour. They denied that the judgment and decree were either illegal, against law and facts, without jurisdiction, ineffective or inoperative against the rights of the plaintiffs. The judgment and decree dated 9.1.1995 were passed on the basis of family settlement dated 15.6.1994. It was also denied that the said judgment and decree were inadmissible for want of registration. Rather, the said judgment and decree conferred full ownership rights upon them. The said decree was incorporated in the revenue record and mutation was duly sanctioned on its basis. Bhajan Singh died on 24.4.1998 after long time of passing the judgment and decree but he never raised any objection during his life time against the judgment and decree in question. It was also denied that Bhajan Singh had no knowledge regarding the contents of the plaint or the written statement. Prior to the filing of the suit, Bhajan Singh executed a valid and legal Will dated 2.9.1986 in their favour which was also got registered by Bhajan Singh. Said Bhajan Singh executed the Will dated 2.9.1986 in lieu of services rendered by them. Bhajan Singh lived for many years with them and had no relationship with the plaintiffs. It was also denied that the said judgment and decree were the result of any fraud played upon the Court. Family settlement was effected by Bhajan Singh because he apprehended litigation about his estate. They were in possession of the suit land since family settlement was effected by Bhajan Singh and their possession was also admitted by Bhajan Singh when he appeared in the Court in the suit filed by them and made a statement in the Court and also filed written statement admitting their claim. Bhajan Singh also admitted the Will executed by him in their favour. The allegations that the plaintiffs were the only and nearest heirs of Bhajan Singh were denied. Even if the judgment and decree in question were found to be inadmissible, in that eventuality, they have also succeeded to the estate of Bhajan Singh on the basis of Will dated 2.9.1986. The plaintiffs have no concern or connection with the suit land and they have no cause of action to file the present suit. The plaintiffs were not entitled to any declaration as prayed for and the suit was liable to be dismissed.