RAJ KALI Vs. JITENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 04.06.03, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gohana, vide which, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff (now appellant), and the judgement and decree dated 11.10.03, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Sonepat, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.

(2.) RAM Sarup, deceased, father of the plaintiff/appellant, was the owner in possession of agricultural land, comprising khewat No. 357, khatoni No. 440, total measuring 73 kanals 1 marla, as per copy of jamabandi for the year 1975-76. He died leaving him surviving Smt. Manbhari widow, Rajkali daughter and Pat Ram, now deceased, father of defendants/respondents No. 1 and 2. After his death, the land, in dispute, was mutated, vide mutation No. 3044, in favour of Manbhari, Raj Kali and Pat Ram, jointly in equal shares. The plaintiff claimed herself to be the owner in possession of 1/3rd share of the land, in dispute. It was stated that one Hari Singh son of Badlu, who was a stranger to the family, filed a suit, on behalf of Pat Ram, minor, against Manbhari and Raj Kali. Raj Kali aged about 34 years, was merely 12 years old, when the judgement and decree were passed, on 24.01.78 in the aforesaid case. It was further stated that Pat Ram had no preexisting right, in the suit property, at the time of institution of the suit, nor there could be any family settlement, between the parties, as both Pat Ram and Raj Kali were minors and the property of a minor could not be transferred, in favour of any person. It was further stated that Raj Kali, being minor, at the relevant time, some impostor was produced in her place, in the Court. That impostor was wrongly identified by some legal brain as Rajkali. It was further stated that a fraud was played upon the plaintiff/appellant, by Hari Singh, in collusion with Manbhari widow of Ram Sarup. It was further stated that the land, in dispute, was of the value of more than Rs. 100/- and, therefore, the decree for want of registration did not confer any right of ownership upon Pat Ram. It was further stated that the decree was the result of fraud. It was further stated that in the Month of January, 1999, when the plaintiff went to Patwari, for obtaining copies of the jamabandi, she came to know that she had no land in her name. The defendants were many a time, asked to get set aside the judgement and decree dated 24.01.78, but to no avail. On their final refusal, to do so, left with no other alternative, a suit for declaration and consequential relief was filed.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck :-