KAMLA Vs. RAM KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is at the instance of appellant-plaintiff against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit of the appellant-plaintiff seeking declaration to be owner in possession of the land detailed in para No.1(a) to (c) of the plaint, for, the defendants have no right, title and interest by laying challenge to the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.4.1986 passed in civil suit bearing No.155 of 5.3.1986 titled as "Raj Kumar and others Vs. Bhuley" and impugned mutation No.1665 dated 14.2.1987, Will dated 31.12.2010 and subsequent mutation to be illegal, null and void, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Succinctly the facts as emanated from the pleadings of the parties to the lis are that the plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit on the ground that she is owner in possession of the agricultural land described in the plaint (hereinafter called as the suit land) to the extent that 1/6 th share, which worked out to be 9 kanals 2 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Devli, Tehsil Palwal, District Palwal. It was averred that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the total agricultural land measuring 13 kanals 0 marlas to the extent of 1/3 rd share i.e. 4 kanals 7 marlas in the same very village on the premise that one Bhuley son of Ram Lal, father of the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land, who died on 10.04.2011 at village Devli. The plaintiff is the only daughter and legal heir of Bhuley, thus, inherited all the estate of Bhuley including the land in dispute being class I heir. On death of her father, she went to the village Patwari for getting entered and sanctioned the mutation of inheritance but was astounded to notice that the land of her father had already been entered and recorded in the name of defendants and on making enquiry acquired the knowledge of judgment and decree dated 24.4.1986 on the basis of which the said mutation was entered. The said decree was nothing but fraud having been played upon Bhuley as he was a simpleton person, for, the pedigree table given in the plaint did not incorporate the name of the appellant-plaintiff as legal heir.

(3.) The aforementioned decree was on the pretext of some family settlement. In fact, father of the plaintiff never entered into any alleged family settlement with the defendants with regard to the suit land or ever relinquished any right, title or interest qua his share in the suit land. All such things were an act of fraud, cheating and deception. The suit land at the hands of Bhuley was ancestral joint family property and no family settlement took place, therefore, he could not have suffered decree in favour of nephews without any legal necessity. Rather in the aforementioned suit, there was a pleading that Bhuley was unmarried and had no issue. It was a concealment of factual aspect. The defendants also propounded a Will dated 31.12.2010, for, at the relevant point of time Bhuley was ill and suffering from various diseases, thus, he was not in a position to think good and bad. In fact, the plaintiff is still in actual physical possession of the suit land.