KRISHNA Vs. JAI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieved of judgment and decree dtd. 18/12/2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bahadurgarh, as well as judgment and decree dtd. 16/11/2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, whereby suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs- appellants has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction to the effect that the property in question as described in the plaint was owned and possessed by a Hindu Undivided Family (for short 'HUF') consisting of Amar Singh and his sons and daughters namely Ram Singh (predecessor-in-interest of appellants no.1 to 7), Partap Singh (predecessor-in-interest of appellants no.8 to 12), Jai Kishan (defendant- respondent no.1), Smt. Ram Rati, Smt. Krishna, Smt. Bala, Smt. Sheela andSmt. Sumitra in equal shares being coparceners as reflected in the pedigree table. The parties to the suit were stated to be in cultivating possession of the land through the male line of descent from last more than 100 years as tenants. The land in question was claimed to be purchased by Amar Singh and his sons out of the joint income of HUF, but it was purchased in the individual name of Amar Singh only being the karta of the HUF. Ram Singh son of Amar Singh died intestate on 12/2/2000 and his estate i.e. 19 share was inherited by plaintiffs no.1 to 7 in equal shares. Partap Singh son of Amar Singh died intestate on 28/11/2009. Plaintiffs no.8 to 12 succeeded to his share. Amar Singh was illiterate but he never thumb marked on any paper as he used to sign in Urdu. Amar Singh passed away on 1/5/2011 intestate, leaving behind the plaintiffs, defendants no.1 to 6. After the death of Amar Singh, defendants no.2 to 6 voluntarily and out of their own free will relinquished their respective shares in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant no.1. Suit property was claimed to be joint and in possession of the plaintiffs and defendants in which plaintiffs no.1 to 7 and 8 to 12 claimed 1 3rd share each besides the remaining share belonging to defendant no.1. Plaintiffs claimed that a conspiracy was hatched against Amar Singh and plaintiffs by defendant no.1 and a fraudulent will dtd. 18/3/1998 was registered in connivance with the scribe, witnesses and Sub-Registrar, Bahadurgarh, whereas Amar Singh had never executed any will in favour of defendant no.1. Mutation was wrongly sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 by the revenue authorities on the basis of will dtd. 18/3/1998 although the suit land was in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and defendant no.1. Mutation on the basis of the will was stated to be illegal, null, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. Despite request, defendant no.1 refused to accept the claim of the plaintiffs. Hence the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendant no.1 resisted the suit. Various preliminary objections were taken in the written statement. Averments on merits were controverted. It was stated that Amar Singh was the owner of the suit property. It was his self acquired property being purchased through registered sale deed dtd. 29/10/1957. Therefore, Amar Singh was the sole owner in possession of the property in question. Amar Singh was taken care of and looked after by Jai Kishan. A valid registered will dtd. 18/3/1998 was executed by Amar Singh in favour of defendant no.1-Jai Kishan. Suit was stated to be false and frivolous. Dismissal of the same was prayed for.