BHAGWANA Vs. BIRJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Birji, widow and Smt. Sarti, Smt. Kirpi and Smt. Shanti, daughters of Tulsi Ram @ Sunda Ram filed suit seeking the relief of declaration that judgment and decree dated 04.12.1978 in civil appeal No.30 of 1977 titled as "Bhagwana Vs. Ram Chander etc." passed by the Court of the then Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani exercising the appellate power, is illegal, against law and result of fraud and fabrication, as such, not binding on the plaintiffs, consequently, mutation NO.434 and 435 dated 01.03.1979 are also illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed their 5/8 share in land measuring 131 kanals 16 marlas and that respondent No.1 Bhagwana is owner of only 1/8th share in the suit property. Brief facts of the case are enumerated as follows:- The dispute in this case pertains to land measuring 131 kanals 16 marlas owned by Tulsi Ram @ Sunda Ram, who is alleged to have died somewhere around 1955. He left behind Bhagwana appellant-defendant No.1, Ram Chander, Sheo Chand as his sons, Birji wife, Sarti, Kirpi, Shanti and Jamna as daughters.

(2.) Ram Chander son of Tulsi Ram @ Sunda Ram filed Civil Suit No.21 of 1975 claiming his 1/8th share in the land in dispute, which was decreed on 29.12.1975 by then Sub Judge, Bhiwani and each heir of Tulsi Ram @ Sunda Ram was declared owner of 1/8th share in the suit land. Appellant Bhagwana filed appeal against said judgment and decree which was decided on 04.12.1978 by Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani having enhanced Appellate Powers as per compromise between the parties. The decree dated 04.12.1978 reads as follows:-

(3.) It was alleged that on the basis of decree, mutation No.434 and 435 dated 01.03.1979 was got sanctioned. The parties have never entered into any exchange of land bearing Khasra No.243 or got their statements to this effect recorded before the Patwari. Rapat No.179 on the basis of which mutation No.435 was entered and sanctioned, is based on the decision in Civil Suit No.117 filed in the Court of Sub Judge IInd Class, Bhiwani, which was virtually dismissed. The plaintiffs also alleged that they were not served any notice before the sanctioning of mutation by the revenue officials. Possession on the basis of alleged exchange were also not transferred and the residential house could not be exchanged with the agriculture land.