HARNAM Vs. MOORTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against judgments and decrees dtd. 4/1/2011 and 16/4/2014 passed by the Courts whereby suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by Smt. Rewti (since deceased) represented by her LR Harnam, son of Rewti was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of suit being barred by limitation and findings on the question of limitation have been affirmed by the Appellate Court.

(2.) There is no dispute between the parties that Sh. Ram Dayal @ Duli was the owner of land measuring 58 Kanal 1 Marla situated in village Aurangabad, Teshil Hodal, District Palwal. Ram Dayal died in July, 1983 and mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his sons namely Girdhari, Devi Singh, Desh Raj and Harnam Singh on the basis of registered Will bearing vasika No.79 dtd. 4/9/1972 vide mutation No.6917 dtd. 6/4/1995. Sh. Girdhari, one of the sons of Ram Dayal died in November, 1983 and left behind two class-I heirs namely Smt. Rewti, his mother and Smt. Moorti, his widow. On the basis of natural succession to Sh. Girdhari, Rewti and Moorti became entitle to 1/8th share each in 1/4th share inherited by Sh. Girdhari Lal on the death of Ram Dayal. However, mutation qua inheritance of Sh. Girdhari was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 to the exclusion of Smt. Rewti. Smt. Moorti performed Kareva Marriage with Sh. Desh Raj, brother of deceased Girdhari.

(3.) The plaintiff challenged Mutation No.6918 qua inheritance to Sh. Girdhari, sale deed dtd. 20/5/1994 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, mutation sanctioned on its basis, sale deed dtd. 13/3/1991 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.3 and 4 and mutation No.7890 sanctioned on its basis, lease deed dtd. 5/9/1994 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and mutation No.8278 on the premise that the same are illegal, null, void, ineffective and not binding on right, title and interest of the plaintiff and liable to be set aside as defendant No.1 has wrongly got mutation qua land more than her share.